"I am all for tolerance... of tolerant people!"
Ever wondered what it would be like to live in a world where we were all identical? You know, same colour, same height, same features, same dress-sense, lifestyle, job... ALL identical. Do you think it is something you might like? Do you, perhaps, believe that it would somehow "make things easier"? Imagine... if we were all alike, then would there be a purpose; a reason; for jealousy, competitive behaviour, envy? Might not such things simply cease to exist? In a world where we were all identical, might we not live harmoniously, side-by-side, for all eternity?
It is potentially quite seductive, to allow ourselves to be convinced that many, if not all, of the world's evils could be eradicated, if only humans were all alike. How many times have we listened to Politicians drivelling on about "levelling the playing field", "all-inclusive education"; promising to "promote equality" and create a "more equal society"? Surely, it is in the interests of any political "Spin-Doctor" to be aware of the fact that political manifestos which purport to advocate equality for all, prove appealing? It is not always necessary to deliver on the promise! We ALL know that. Just as we know that such speeches don't tend to lead to any significant change for the positive.
The notion "if only all humans were identical, then there would be no problems" is catchy, in its apparent simplicity. But, there's the rub! It is drastically over-simplistic! Now, this is NOT to be an essay upon the nature of God, creation and the Universe... no, that is definitely NOT what is intended. Besides, as a professed Agnostic, who am I to comment? Matters such as those are best left to "believers"; and belief is, in my eyes, a choice. Just as I choose to remain unconcerned as to whether a "Supreme Being" exists, or not, there are others who choose to believe. Fine! So long as we are prepared to "live and let live", each accepting that the other has different beliefs, then, that is just fine...
Many of you will, I hope, have been perceptive enough to have noticed my deliberate "gaffe"... I have already referred to the need in this world for acceptance of different beliefs. So, it becomes evident that in reality, humans are all different. Whether created by "God", "Allah", "Yahweh", "Elohim", "Jehovah", "Vishnu"... Whether born out of "chaos", as in ancient Norse and Egyptian mythology... Whether descended from a species of primitive primate, via a series of selective evolutionary changes... Humans are all different. Thus, whatever our belief system, we must accept, if scientifically inclined, that humans evolved to be different; or, if of a more religious persuasion, we must accept that the Supreme Being chose to create humans who would all be different.
Allow me to return, if I may, to the concept of humans all being identical. Superficially, that seemed to hold so many answers, so many solutions to society's problems. After all, would sexism exist in the absence of gender differences? Would ageism exist, were we all to remain forever young? How could we continue to discriminate against individuals for the colour of their skin, or for their having mental health problems, or requiring a wheelchair to assist mobility, were people all to be identical? How much easier that would be for all!
But: here I ask you to pause, and, as I had hoped this website might encourage you to do... THINK. Just stop a moment, and take a good look at yourself. How many of us truly take the time to do that? To stop, to look, to take stock of all that we are, all that we have achieved and all that we aspire to? If you are following my advice, and taking stock, then what exactly do you see? Who is that person? What do they look like? What are their likes, and dislikes? What have they achieved? Where would they like their life to take them?
I cannot possibly answer those questions; for I am not you. And that is my point. We are distinct from each other; as distinct as our different appearances, our different tastes, our different lifestyles, families, friends, and career choices might make us. Is there something wrong with that?
Besides, what might we be like if identical? If all humans were truly to be alike, what would they be like? And... who would get to choose? I say that as though it implies that there would be a choice; perhaps there would not. But, given that we have already known difference, then were we all to be made alike, what exactly would that "alike" entail?
For a start... would it be male, or female? Or would it be gender-neutral; a catch-all? Then, would we be tall, or short? Would we have long hair, short hair, red hair, black hair, brown hair, blonde hair... or be bald? Would be simply be hairy, all over? What about beards? Or moustaches? Would we all have one of those? What colour would our eyes be? And our skin? Freckles? Or no freckles? Fat or thin? Muscular and athletic, or slightly built and willowy? Or maybe "Supermodel-esque"? Would our belly buttons be "innies" or "outies"; or simply non-existent? Would we have long nails, short nails or no nails? "Roman" noses, "retrousse" noses, flat squashy "boxers" noses? Thick lips, thin lips, pouty lips? How about dimples? What would we choose for a, pardon the term, "butt"? A tiny, pert little "Kylie" of a bottom; or a curvaceous, peachy "J-Lo"? Would we all have breasts... no! Don't even go there! The permutations do not bear thinking about!
Ah... thinking! Yes, that would be an issue, too. What would these identical beings be like, intellectually? A bunch of genii (geniuses? Here, I'm at a loss as to the correct form of plural; even after several perusals of the "Oxford English", and a lengthy trawl of "Google"!). Or, would we simply be (as I seem intent upon proving myself) "thick"?
Maybe this would have been easier, had we never experienced difference. After all, the saying goes... "what you don't know can't hurt". But we have experienced difference, diversity. We are aware of it all about us. How easy would it truly be, now, to decide on what we ought to be like, were we to have the power to make ourselves all alike? What might it really feel like, to find ourselves suddenly all identical?
Well, here's where I leap on my "soapbox", triumphantly yelling , "Vive la difference!"
I could not personally bear a world of identical clones...
There is a beauty in individual difference that cannot be underestimated. It is truly awesome to think that no two humans are utterly alike. That we are all individual, exquisite, unique. That; unless the technology comes along to safely and ethically do so; we can never be replicated. We; that is, each individual human being; are the one and only. There will never be another me (here, some might say, "thank God"!), never another you.
That is something really special.
So, why is it that, societally, we seem so afraid of difference? All that is negative in our judgement of others is so often based solely; and frequently erroneously; on real, or perceived, difference. We have devised a system of communication that, no matter the language, contains innumerable derogatory terms relating to a person's race, ethnicity, skin colour, age, gender, sexuality, physical ability level, mental ability level, intelligence, hair colour, dress sense, taste in music... I will stop here, for the sake of convenience, otherwise I risk listing pages of insults!
------------------------------------
Let me give you a (very personal) example...
Several years ago, I found myself experiencing a family crisis. I had reached a difficult point in my life - the result of a combination of factors, including bereavements, parental illness, and the stress of setting up home for the first time. My rational decision was to face up to my problems, and go to see a Counsellor, in the hope that by working through my "issues" together with a trained, empathic and impartial confidante, I might better be able to make the transition through my family crisis, and back to a sense of stability.
So... I approached my G.P., who referred me to the Counsellor. So far, so good. I began the sessions...
Perhaps, in my naivete, I had got something dramatically wrong? Perhaps I had a pre-conceived idea of what a Counsellor ought to be like? Perhaps that was wrong...
The truth was, that the sessions felt uncomfortable. I did not "gel" with the Counsellor, and felt unable to fully confide in them. I decided to discontinue counselling after only a few meetings with the Counsellor. The Counsellor had other ideas, and wrote to me, persuading me to persist. Six sessions were, however, more than enough for me, and were concluded with my feeling very little helped at all. Oh yes! I had told the Counsellor about my "issues"... but they had most certainly not helped me to resolve them.
Years later, this continued to trouble me, especially as I had reason to require long-term medical treatment, due to diagnoses of Asthma and chronic Sinusitis. Unfortunately, I also began to suffer menstrual problems in my early 30s, so returned to seek the assistance of my G.P. in the hope of finding a cure. Here commenced what I can only describe as a "multiple-year-long nightmare"!
The G.P. presented initially as indifferent. I was already under the "care" of E.N.T. services at the local Hospital, due to my chronic respiratory problems. It was felt that the menstrual problems could be managed "in house". So, no referral.
My symptoms persisted. Recurrent sinus and upper respiratory tract infections, sore throats, aches, fatigue, headaches... as well as the additional stomach cramps, pelvic pain, lower back pain, upset stomach and borderline anaemia that now started to accompany my heavy and irregular periods. Life with these symptoms was NOT at all pleasant, especially around a particular "time of the month"!
Still little help from the G.P. surgery - it seemed I rarely got to see the same Doctor at appointments, so absolutely NO consistency, there. Each time I attended, I was having to repeat my symptoms all over again, "from scratch". No progress; just a series of disjointed appointments, with different practitioners, all with a different view of what was going on. However, one theme persisted... my symptoms were predominantly, if not all, PSYCHOSOMATIC.
I listened to suggestions that I was "stressed", "anxious", "depressed"; that I might have "irritable bowel"; all of which implied that I was somehow "fabricating" my symptoms. Despite numerous infections, and courses of Antibiotics, my E.N.T. consultant insisted upon telling me, following C.T. scans and numerous appointments, that he could "find nothing wrong". The attitude of Doctors at my G.P. surgery varied - it encompassed a range of reactions from indifferent, to dismissive, to bordering on annoyed. ALL seemed to wish to keep me at "arm's length", either diagnosing and prescribing over the telephone (how SAFE is that?!), or ushering me in and out of appointments as quickly as possible. NONE appeared to have any real idea as to what was at the root of my symptoms, or how best to manage them.
To make matters worse, I was at this time, experiencing my mother's serious illness (an episode of intense anxiety and stress brought about by the pain of two arthritic knees, which necessitated surgical replacement of both joints), had just moved house (to a vintage property that required a lot of refurbishment), and was supporting my husband through a difficult time in his life (his father was dying of Cancer). I was overloaded at work, and my home life was hectic. Thus, I was all too easily persuaded that my symptoms MUST be those of stress, and began to blame myself for all that was going on.
I was eventually referred to a Gynaecologist, but to add insult to injury, he was neither polite, nor helpful. He rarely presented himself at the appointments I was supposed to have with him. Instead, I saw a series of Junior Doctors, and Locums, again leading to the problems of disjointed care, miscommunication, and differences of medical opinion. My treatment, therefore, stalled.
In desperation, I again sought the services of a Counsellor. This one was so different to the last. Polite, softly spoken, warm, informal, humourous, and most importantly, easy to talk to. But still things did not improve significantly. Though the Counsellor helped me address some of my familial concerns, on a wider scale, all about me I found myself cast adrift and unsupported. My husband had his own problems, as did his parents, and my parents. I found it difficult to talk about my menstrual problems and fear of infertility without becoming very emotional, so responded by pushing such issues to the back of my mind. Support from my Gynaecologist was non-existent; support from E.N.T. non-forthcoming; support from any Doctor at my G.P. surgery haphazard, at best. To cap it all, my employers' attitude towards me was HORRENDOUS. Absolutely
no empathy or understanding, whatsoever. Clearly, it was felt that a woman should cope unaided with moving house, bereavement, family illness, personal illness, a distressed husband, a distraught mother-in-law, psychotic mother, and frustrated father!
Jump forwards in time! Several years later, I now have a much better understanding as to why such negative and unhelpful attitudes proliferated about me. I HAVE SEEN MY MEDICAL RECORDS. And, let me say, they were a revelation!
I have been able to identify the fact that, during the period above, of which I talked, the following things were happening...
Written by my Gynaecologist, Mr. M. S. (Blackpool):
"Thanks for asking me to see this lady. You say that she has been told by a previous practice that she has polycystic ovary syndrome, she certainly has erratic periods and complains of acne. She also complains of many other symptoms and it is obvious that anxiety is perhaps a major one. She basically more or less avoids sex so the comment that she would like to conceive is unlikely to occur!"
(Quoted verbatim from undated letter to G.P. Dr. G.).
It is to be noted that I had NOT been told by a "previous practice" about Polycystic Ovaries, but that the telling me I had Polycystic Ovaries took place in Mr. M. S.'s Gynaecology Department. It is also to be noted that Mr. M. S. is a Gynaecologist and NOT a Psychiatrist so his assumption that "anxiety" is "obviously" "perhaps" a "major symptom" is spurious and ill-founded at best. Besides, something is either obviously OR perhaps a symptom, it CANNOT be both. Obvious would indicate that it cannot be argued with, it can be seen by all. Perhaps implies doubt. (Here, I would suggest that Mr. M. S. receives a valuable lesson in the usage of the English language!). Finally, it is to be noted that a woman in pain may well avoid sex. However, as Mr. M. S. was not at that time, nor has ever been, my partner, husband or boyfriend (Ugh! The thought disgusts me!) he had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of my intimate relations. Furthermore, he yet again makes the same error of writing "basically more or less avoids" - either I avoid, or I do not! Which is it, Mr. M. S.? If you do not know, then surely it is most prudent to write nothing.
And these absolute beauties written by "Counsellor" Mrs. J. F., and her unidentified associate C. (Lancaster):
" needs to modify her behaviour towards others as it tends to alienate others towards her."
(Quoted verbatim from counselling assessment dated 31/07/1997).
This one particularly confuses me, for a variety of reasons: a) it is not backed up by any examples of the ways I "alienate others"; b) counsellors are supposed to be non-judgemental, and suggesting that somebody should modify their behaviour to suit others, especially when no understanding of how those other people are behaving exists, is extremely judgemental; c) counsellors are not supposed to blame patients for their problems. Without identifying who the other people are that I am allegedly "alienating", and without giving examples of both their behaviour and mine, in order to prove that I am at fault, and not others, then this statement is rendered invalid. It is not a qualified statement, just a subjective opinion.
"I discussed situation with Dr. G.. I think (my name) will distort information and think I am rejecting her which fits in with her view of things."
(Quoted verbatim from notes by J. F. dated 18/09/1997).
This worries me intensely, as it demonstrates a breach of patient confidentiality. I ought to have been informed that Dr. G. was to be consulted. Furthermore, it is evident that the Counsellor, and not me, is attempting to distort information. Otherwise, why would she need to jump in with the comment "I think (my name) will distort information", before discussing the facts with me? She has told the Doctor her version of events, alone, and wants to make absolutely sure that I do not get to present mine - she has additionally ensured that, even if I do, it will not be believed.
It is also interesting that the Counsellor demonstrates a terible lack of self-awareness during this incident. She additionally demonstrates a lack of basic counselling skills. Patients attend counselling to attempt to resolve traumatic and often paiinful events in their lives; including bereavement, abuse, bullying, divorce, separation, loss. People do not attend Counselling just for something to do; meaning that they have therefore not experienced a traumatic event. The experiencing of trauma can lead a person to feel all kinds of negative emotions, and to fear all sorts of negative outcomes. It is evident that a person attending counselling may well fear rejection, loss, further distress... a counsellor ought to be well aware of such facts, and well prepared to deal with them. To suggest that a patient is "distorting information" by fearing rejection; especially where a Counsellor is well aware that the person has talked previously of this and has admitted to such a fear; is in effect blaming the patient for having that fear in the first place. People go to see Counsellors in the hope that they will be afforded the opportunity to talk through difficult and often painful issues, or life events, in a non-judgemental and supportive environment. The last thing that they are looking for is further blaming, criticism and recriminations.
"I was struck by her rather Lady McBeth appearance."
(Quoted verbatim from undated report written by the elusive C. {who, it is to be noted, MOST UNPROFESSIONALLY, DID NOT give her surname or professional qualifications}).
"Have a feeling that her motivation to be succesful at the tribunal exceeds her motivation to work towards feeling well at this time."
(Quoted verbatim from same report as above).
Oh, do these comments make me feel sick! After all, counselling is not character assassination! A person's appearance has nothing to do with anything that goes on within a counselling session - prejudice has no place in counselling. Besides, what exactly is "Lady McBeth appearance"? As far as I can recall, I did not ever attend a counselling session in full Medieval costume! And I am certain my recollection is accurate! (Had I done so, I doubt I would ever have escaped "sectioning" to a Psychiatric Hospital!!).
At the time of the counselling, I was off work with stress. I had also been through a pretty rough time, having not long before had surgery to my sinuses (remember that I have chronic sinus problems?). I had returned to work to find myself facing a false allegation made by a colleague who, unsurprisingly, wished to remain anonymous. This had upset me immensely, as I suspected that the fabricated allegation had been made by a colleague with whom I had, up until that point, been on good terms. I had been due to attend her Hen Party, but had been obliged to cancel, and I had requested that she return to me my deposit (paid in advance for a meal and night out which I could now no longer attend). I believe that she had taken offence at this, and had ever afterwards refused to be civil to me. She had never returned my money (thief!). I felt that it was highly likely that this girl, or one of her close friends, was behind the lie. The allegation had been investigated, and found to be insubstantiated, and thus I was then involved in consultation about a return to work. I did not wish to return to the same office as previously, as I feared having to work alongside the colleague who had lied about me (I was unaware as to whether they had been disciplined). I had sought the assistance of a Union Representative to help arrange a transfer, so I could return to work. I was not involved in a tribunal, had not ever contemplated starting a tribunal, and did not intend to commence tribunal proceedings. There were no thoughts whatsoever on my behalf of being "motivated to succeed at tribunal" because there WAS NO TRIBUNAL.
I simply wanted to de-stress and move to a job where I felt more appreciated.
-------------------------------
Apologies to any of you who think I may have digressed... but, in actuality, here beginneth the lesson...
I have learned a great deal from the above scenario about the problems people have with individual differences. I have learned both about my own ignorance, and about the ignorance of others. I have learned that it is all too easy to go into situations with pre-conceived ideas, and to fall foul of this very fact. I have learned that people all too often pre-judge others, based frequently upon assumptions, rather than upon accurate knowledge and information. I have learned that such judgements are far too regularly the result of erroneous decision making; that they are based on shallow, and often somewhat glib, stereotyping of others. That humans make judgements of others; judgements that can have far-reaching consequences; in split-seconds, based on such superficial things as dress sense, skin colour, whether a person is good-looking. These are not the criteria by which we should judge others. To apply such criteria in our judgements of others is to reveal ourselves as shallow, prejudiced and narrow-minded. We can, perhaps, all learn from what I have learned.
So... what did I learn?
First of all, allow me to say that this has been an uncomfortable experience for me, as it has shown to me the extent of my own ignorance. I now bare that to all. Judge as you may...
I have learned many things; here are just a few of the choicest:
Whatever happened to integrity? Whatever happened to such other once-important values, like honesty, impartility, tolerance, openness...? Where have they gone in today's society? How has society changed so much, as to render such values invisible, or possibly even unimportant?
Today, we in the West live in a fast-paced, rapidly-changing and ultra-consumerist society. Lying, or at least "distorting the truth", appears to have become commonplace. It is almost as though we acknowledge that it takes place, and accept it happening. We appear powerless to challenge the politicians who make empty promises within their manifestos, accepting that they have come to power irrespective of their ability to make good that promise. We appear powerless to challenge the false advertising of innumerable large corporations, who happily rake in immense profits, whilst making claims of dubious merit in respect of their products. How often to they deliver the goods? How often are the claims true? We appear powerless to challenge the endless hikes in fuel and energy prices, whilst listening to the energy companies' pathetic excuses that they "must raise petrol prices at the pump because fuel is so much more costly to them", or "must raise energy bills because the gas they buy now costs more". Is this true? Where is the evidence to prove it? And besides, if, as they claim, they are spending more to purchase this energy and fuel for us, then how come they continue to turn a massive profit?
If we accept that this is the way in which groups, organisations and large corporations may conduct themselves, then does that mean that we also accept that such behaviour is o.k. for the individual? Every day, we are bombarded with messages about the sort of people we ought to be. Many of these messages come via the media - television, magazines, newspapers. Most, if not all, are directly or indirectly aimed at trying to sell us something. By appealing to us directly through our lifestyle choices; our clothes, our hairstyles, our posessions; producers are "able to get into out heads". They "sell" to us the possibility of what might be - always a little better than what we have now, always "aspirational". They tell us that to drive their car will get us noticed. That their hair product will make us look perfectly groomed. That their dress will make us look slim and beautiful. That if we install their fitted kitchen it will be admired by all our friends. That if we wear their aftershave we will attract all the pretty women. ABSOLUTE GUFF! But we fall for it!
We do not question the fact that the product they are attempting to peddle is almost always "dressed up tp the nines" - promoted to us via an "all singing, all dancing" extravoganza of an advertisement. It's all "bells, whistles and bunting"! The "couple" in the advert with their "adorable children" are all professional "supermodals". They are all perfectly fit, perfectly healthy, and perfectly behaved; as are their "pets" (if animals are included in the sales pitch). Any "house" featured will be huge, and immaculately decorated. Any "car" will be top-of-the-range. Everything is larger than life!
Why do we allow this? Why do we allow a society that attempts to tell us who we should be, and what we should look like? That puts "models" and "celebrities" on pedestals, endlessly bleating that they are what we should aspire to? WHY?
THIS IS NOT REALITY. Are we really so shallow and so gullible as to believe otherwise?
Humans appear to have a very peculiar ability - it is the ability to behave one way in private, and another in public. Not everybody behaves in this manner - that is a question of personal integrity. The stronger one's integrity, the less likely it is that one will change one's behaviour to fit in. To fit in with what? As I have said, it is a peculiar thing, that a person may be so easily persuaded to adopt a specific viewpoint, simply because it is the group consensus. That does not automatically make it correct.
Apartheid in South Africa was once the "group consensus" - that did NOT make it correct. Genocide was once the "group consensus" amongst members of the Nazi Party - that did NOT make it correct. A large number of people in Victorian England believed that mentally ill people ought to be placed forever in Asylums - that did NOT make it correct. Many people today believe that physically and mentally disabled people are incapable fo holding down a job - that does NOT make such a view correct. The mere fact that a large number of people believe something to be true, does not automatically make it so. On the contrary...
Humans are social beings. This means that they live, or are disposed to live, in companionship with others; or in a community; rather than in isolation. "Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god." (3). Clearly, there are benefits to livig in society, such as safety in numbers. Living societally also helps us to access other things that may prove to be of benefit to us, such as health care, housing, welfare benefits, child care facilities, provision of food and clothing... things that we often consider to be essential to daily life. However, there is a trade-off. To live as part of a society means also that one needs to be accepted by that society. Acceptance often, if not always, depends upon following societal rules and regulations. It means behaving in a manner that can be considered "normal", conventional. It does not mean "bucking the trend".
Hang on a moment! Isn't this all a little prescriptive? A little dogmatic? A wee bit too focussed on the "normative" (whatever that may be)? Society tells us how to behave, how to be. It lays down strictures. IT ASKS, NAY, DEMANDS, SOMETHING OF US. It demands that we be acceptable.
But to whom? Yes, society is made up of people. But, as I have already pointed out, not all people are equal. A perverse fact about society is that some people have more "value" - more power - than others. Such people lay down the rules. Remember what I told you about politicians, celebrities, the media? Well, same applies to others who experience privilege; the wealthy, nobility, the ruling classes, heads of big businesses... These are the people who get to tell the rest of us how to live.
A little closer to home, there is an additional level of potential influencers - ouir families, our friends, our peers, our colleagues. Where humans live societally, there is generally an exchange of ideas. However, such exchanges can sometimes result in an imbalance, particularly where one side in the exchange has more power than the other. This is how some ideas, thoughts, beliefs, ideologies come to predominate. Think about it...
Why do we live in a society that appears to tell us that material goods are a measure of success? Why are women lead to believe that impossibly stick thin, with enormous breasts, glowing orange skin, fake hair, fake nails, fake eyelashes, caked in makeup and squeezed into a dress that would under close scrutiny prove to be too small and too tight even for a pre-pubescent girl, let alone an adult woman... why are we lead to believe that this is the epitome of feminine beauty? Why are men still hooked in by the old (nay, Neanderthal!) "breadwinner" drivel - the fast car, sharp suit, simpering and fawning blonde on the arm? Why is the most beautiful skin white; not black, or tan, or tawny, or dusky? Why are birthmarks embarrassing? Why is Down's Syndrome unacceptable? Why is being in a wheelchair, or having Schizophrenia, or being unable to have children... shameful? Why is gay or lesbian marriage taboo? WHY?
Who made all these "rules"?
Someone, somewhere in our "society" made them. And whilst we fail to challenge them, then each and every one of us is guilty of allowing them to persist. We are brought up with such notions, indoctrinated - they are ingrained in our psyche from a very early age. Ah, the wonders of "socialization"!
Yet we are all independent, conscious, thinking, sentient beings. That gives us the power to challenge. Once we learn to place ourselves in the shoes of others, so to speak; once we learn to empathise; we also learn the benefits of questioning what is about us. We learn not to take for granted. We can see from a different perspective. We see through someone else's eyes. And that can be a revelation!
Ask yourself this...
The fact that a man, woman, or child has black skin... does it harm you in any way? Does it hurt you? Does it change your life, in any way?
The fact that your neighbour, or the bloke down the street, or that girl in the office is in a wheelchair... is it affecting you? Is it in any way stopping you getting on with your life?
The fact that some guy on a news program got engaged to another guy... how on earth is that impacting upon your life? What has it changed, for you?
I suspect that the answer to each and every question is truly revealing. Answer them subjectively, and I don't doubt that your prejudices and your erroneous judgements will play some part in your response. Answer them objectively, and the fact is that the colour of someone else's skin, or their being in a wheelchair, or homosexual, has no effect on YOU whatsoever.
It's back to this all over again... do you judge on first impressions, or do you hold your judgement (or, better still, try not to judge at all)?
Remember, there will always be opinions circulating. Now that we live within a society, it is hard for us to go back. We cannot now escape the fact that the media exist - television, radio, cinema, newspapers and magazines - all thrusting their opinions, their viewpoints at us; all telling us who to be, how to live, what to look like. We cannot escape the fashion industry, the food industry, the luxury goods industry, the holiday industry... all with something to sell us. We cannot escape Politicians, "spin-doctors", television "experts", celebrities... telling us how to do things, how to live. We cannot escape our families, peers, friends, colleagues... all with their "ten-penneceworth".
Do we always give in?
If (and I sneakily suspect that it will not be) the answer is a resounding "yes", then please, I entreat you to (metaphorically speaking) go off and contemplate suicide. After all, you have just killed yourself. YOUR TRUE SELF. Are you really telling me that you wish to live out your whole life always at the whim of another? That you are so powerless as to never assert yourself? That you wish always to be dictated to, given orders, put under pressure? To the end of your days?
I suspect a wee tad of hypocrisy, here! Know why? Well, I'd put money on it (if I were a gambling sort!) that you did not do everything in your life the same way as everyone else. I'd put money on it that you do not look like everyone else. Is your car the same as everyone else's down your street? Do you all have 2.4 children? Do you do the same job as everyone you are related to? Is your hair styled the same as your mother's? Are your living room curtains and carpet the same as Great Uncle Fred's? Do you even have a Great Uncle Fred?
If I have inadvertently described any one of you, then... that's just freaky! There was no intention whatsoever! I meant only to illustrate a point...
It is highly unlikely that each and every one of us will identify with everything I asked, and respond affirmatively to every question. We are all individuals. We have different tastes, and different preferences. And that's just fine. It really is.
So, let's step back a little and see the world from a different perspective. We don't all have to look like models, or have "Hello Magazine" styled weddings. We don't all have to worship the same God - or any God, for that matter. We don't all have to listen to Elvis, or admire Cheryl Cole, or aspire to being David Beckham. We don't all have to live in the same sort of home, or drive the same car, or eat the same foods, or do the same job, or get the same qualifications... Nobody has the right to tell us otherwise. That is a violation.
Some of us are black, some white, some Hispanic, others Asian... Some of us are gay, some straight. Some of us choose to have children, and some do not; yet others cannot have children, whether they would like to, or not. Some of us are good at Maths, some prefer English, others Art, Music, French, Geography, Physics... Some of us achieve GCSEs, others go on to PHDs. Some gain no qualifications at all. Some of us marry, others remain single. Some of us are "homebodies", others are career orientated. Some of us stay rooted in one place, others travel extensively. Some are introverts, others extroverts. Some are practical, others more intellectual, or creative. Some of us wear skirts, some trousers, yet others Saris, Shalwar Kameez, veils, turbans, Kimonos, kilts... You get the picture.
We do not, any one of us, know what is behind the "facade" that another person presents us with. If all we see is that "facade", and that is what we base judgements on, the we are highly likely to get it wrong. It takes time to get to know somebody; and even then, there may be things we never truly get to know. A person may choose to reveal, or they may choose to keep hidden. They may be open, or "play their cards close to their chest". That is yet another example of difference.
We cannot avoid diversity. It exists, and we should accept that it exists. It is not healthy for us to live in a world which attempts to force everything, and everyone, to be "the same". After all; as I asked at the start of this "essay"; what kind of "same" would we all be? We are all different, and it is not good to be made to fear difference, to engender prejudice and discrimination on the basis of difference. Homogeneity does not exist, so why are we perversely attempting to enforce it? Our fear of difference is born of ignorance. Pressure to "all be the same" brings out the very worst in us.
Any of you ever read Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four"? I did. It was frightening!
---------------------------
Bibliography/References:
1. "Angel Of Mercy (Criminology)", at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_Mercy_(criminology)
2. "Profile Of Serial Killer Ted Bundy", at crime.about.com>News & Issues>Crime/Punishment>Serial Killers
3. "Politics" by Aristotle, at classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html
Ever wondered what it would be like to live in a world where we were all identical? You know, same colour, same height, same features, same dress-sense, lifestyle, job... ALL identical. Do you think it is something you might like? Do you, perhaps, believe that it would somehow "make things easier"? Imagine... if we were all alike, then would there be a purpose; a reason; for jealousy, competitive behaviour, envy? Might not such things simply cease to exist? In a world where we were all identical, might we not live harmoniously, side-by-side, for all eternity?
It is potentially quite seductive, to allow ourselves to be convinced that many, if not all, of the world's evils could be eradicated, if only humans were all alike. How many times have we listened to Politicians drivelling on about "levelling the playing field", "all-inclusive education"; promising to "promote equality" and create a "more equal society"? Surely, it is in the interests of any political "Spin-Doctor" to be aware of the fact that political manifestos which purport to advocate equality for all, prove appealing? It is not always necessary to deliver on the promise! We ALL know that. Just as we know that such speeches don't tend to lead to any significant change for the positive.
The notion "if only all humans were identical, then there would be no problems" is catchy, in its apparent simplicity. But, there's the rub! It is drastically over-simplistic! Now, this is NOT to be an essay upon the nature of God, creation and the Universe... no, that is definitely NOT what is intended. Besides, as a professed Agnostic, who am I to comment? Matters such as those are best left to "believers"; and belief is, in my eyes, a choice. Just as I choose to remain unconcerned as to whether a "Supreme Being" exists, or not, there are others who choose to believe. Fine! So long as we are prepared to "live and let live", each accepting that the other has different beliefs, then, that is just fine...
Many of you will, I hope, have been perceptive enough to have noticed my deliberate "gaffe"... I have already referred to the need in this world for acceptance of different beliefs. So, it becomes evident that in reality, humans are all different. Whether created by "God", "Allah", "Yahweh", "Elohim", "Jehovah", "Vishnu"... Whether born out of "chaos", as in ancient Norse and Egyptian mythology... Whether descended from a species of primitive primate, via a series of selective evolutionary changes... Humans are all different. Thus, whatever our belief system, we must accept, if scientifically inclined, that humans evolved to be different; or, if of a more religious persuasion, we must accept that the Supreme Being chose to create humans who would all be different.
Allow me to return, if I may, to the concept of humans all being identical. Superficially, that seemed to hold so many answers, so many solutions to society's problems. After all, would sexism exist in the absence of gender differences? Would ageism exist, were we all to remain forever young? How could we continue to discriminate against individuals for the colour of their skin, or for their having mental health problems, or requiring a wheelchair to assist mobility, were people all to be identical? How much easier that would be for all!
But: here I ask you to pause, and, as I had hoped this website might encourage you to do... THINK. Just stop a moment, and take a good look at yourself. How many of us truly take the time to do that? To stop, to look, to take stock of all that we are, all that we have achieved and all that we aspire to? If you are following my advice, and taking stock, then what exactly do you see? Who is that person? What do they look like? What are their likes, and dislikes? What have they achieved? Where would they like their life to take them?
I cannot possibly answer those questions; for I am not you. And that is my point. We are distinct from each other; as distinct as our different appearances, our different tastes, our different lifestyles, families, friends, and career choices might make us. Is there something wrong with that?
Besides, what might we be like if identical? If all humans were truly to be alike, what would they be like? And... who would get to choose? I say that as though it implies that there would be a choice; perhaps there would not. But, given that we have already known difference, then were we all to be made alike, what exactly would that "alike" entail?
For a start... would it be male, or female? Or would it be gender-neutral; a catch-all? Then, would we be tall, or short? Would we have long hair, short hair, red hair, black hair, brown hair, blonde hair... or be bald? Would be simply be hairy, all over? What about beards? Or moustaches? Would we all have one of those? What colour would our eyes be? And our skin? Freckles? Or no freckles? Fat or thin? Muscular and athletic, or slightly built and willowy? Or maybe "Supermodel-esque"? Would our belly buttons be "innies" or "outies"; or simply non-existent? Would we have long nails, short nails or no nails? "Roman" noses, "retrousse" noses, flat squashy "boxers" noses? Thick lips, thin lips, pouty lips? How about dimples? What would we choose for a, pardon the term, "butt"? A tiny, pert little "Kylie" of a bottom; or a curvaceous, peachy "J-Lo"? Would we all have breasts... no! Don't even go there! The permutations do not bear thinking about!
Ah... thinking! Yes, that would be an issue, too. What would these identical beings be like, intellectually? A bunch of genii (geniuses? Here, I'm at a loss as to the correct form of plural; even after several perusals of the "Oxford English", and a lengthy trawl of "Google"!). Or, would we simply be (as I seem intent upon proving myself) "thick"?
Maybe this would have been easier, had we never experienced difference. After all, the saying goes... "what you don't know can't hurt". But we have experienced difference, diversity. We are aware of it all about us. How easy would it truly be, now, to decide on what we ought to be like, were we to have the power to make ourselves all alike? What might it really feel like, to find ourselves suddenly all identical?
Well, here's where I leap on my "soapbox", triumphantly yelling , "Vive la difference!"
I could not personally bear a world of identical clones...
There is a beauty in individual difference that cannot be underestimated. It is truly awesome to think that no two humans are utterly alike. That we are all individual, exquisite, unique. That; unless the technology comes along to safely and ethically do so; we can never be replicated. We; that is, each individual human being; are the one and only. There will never be another me (here, some might say, "thank God"!), never another you.
That is something really special.
So, why is it that, societally, we seem so afraid of difference? All that is negative in our judgement of others is so often based solely; and frequently erroneously; on real, or perceived, difference. We have devised a system of communication that, no matter the language, contains innumerable derogatory terms relating to a person's race, ethnicity, skin colour, age, gender, sexuality, physical ability level, mental ability level, intelligence, hair colour, dress sense, taste in music... I will stop here, for the sake of convenience, otherwise I risk listing pages of insults!
------------------------------------
Let me give you a (very personal) example...
Several years ago, I found myself experiencing a family crisis. I had reached a difficult point in my life - the result of a combination of factors, including bereavements, parental illness, and the stress of setting up home for the first time. My rational decision was to face up to my problems, and go to see a Counsellor, in the hope that by working through my "issues" together with a trained, empathic and impartial confidante, I might better be able to make the transition through my family crisis, and back to a sense of stability.
So... I approached my G.P., who referred me to the Counsellor. So far, so good. I began the sessions...
Perhaps, in my naivete, I had got something dramatically wrong? Perhaps I had a pre-conceived idea of what a Counsellor ought to be like? Perhaps that was wrong...
The truth was, that the sessions felt uncomfortable. I did not "gel" with the Counsellor, and felt unable to fully confide in them. I decided to discontinue counselling after only a few meetings with the Counsellor. The Counsellor had other ideas, and wrote to me, persuading me to persist. Six sessions were, however, more than enough for me, and were concluded with my feeling very little helped at all. Oh yes! I had told the Counsellor about my "issues"... but they had most certainly not helped me to resolve them.
Years later, this continued to trouble me, especially as I had reason to require long-term medical treatment, due to diagnoses of Asthma and chronic Sinusitis. Unfortunately, I also began to suffer menstrual problems in my early 30s, so returned to seek the assistance of my G.P. in the hope of finding a cure. Here commenced what I can only describe as a "multiple-year-long nightmare"!
The G.P. presented initially as indifferent. I was already under the "care" of E.N.T. services at the local Hospital, due to my chronic respiratory problems. It was felt that the menstrual problems could be managed "in house". So, no referral.
My symptoms persisted. Recurrent sinus and upper respiratory tract infections, sore throats, aches, fatigue, headaches... as well as the additional stomach cramps, pelvic pain, lower back pain, upset stomach and borderline anaemia that now started to accompany my heavy and irregular periods. Life with these symptoms was NOT at all pleasant, especially around a particular "time of the month"!
Still little help from the G.P. surgery - it seemed I rarely got to see the same Doctor at appointments, so absolutely NO consistency, there. Each time I attended, I was having to repeat my symptoms all over again, "from scratch". No progress; just a series of disjointed appointments, with different practitioners, all with a different view of what was going on. However, one theme persisted... my symptoms were predominantly, if not all, PSYCHOSOMATIC.
I listened to suggestions that I was "stressed", "anxious", "depressed"; that I might have "irritable bowel"; all of which implied that I was somehow "fabricating" my symptoms. Despite numerous infections, and courses of Antibiotics, my E.N.T. consultant insisted upon telling me, following C.T. scans and numerous appointments, that he could "find nothing wrong". The attitude of Doctors at my G.P. surgery varied - it encompassed a range of reactions from indifferent, to dismissive, to bordering on annoyed. ALL seemed to wish to keep me at "arm's length", either diagnosing and prescribing over the telephone (how SAFE is that?!), or ushering me in and out of appointments as quickly as possible. NONE appeared to have any real idea as to what was at the root of my symptoms, or how best to manage them.
To make matters worse, I was at this time, experiencing my mother's serious illness (an episode of intense anxiety and stress brought about by the pain of two arthritic knees, which necessitated surgical replacement of both joints), had just moved house (to a vintage property that required a lot of refurbishment), and was supporting my husband through a difficult time in his life (his father was dying of Cancer). I was overloaded at work, and my home life was hectic. Thus, I was all too easily persuaded that my symptoms MUST be those of stress, and began to blame myself for all that was going on.
I was eventually referred to a Gynaecologist, but to add insult to injury, he was neither polite, nor helpful. He rarely presented himself at the appointments I was supposed to have with him. Instead, I saw a series of Junior Doctors, and Locums, again leading to the problems of disjointed care, miscommunication, and differences of medical opinion. My treatment, therefore, stalled.
In desperation, I again sought the services of a Counsellor. This one was so different to the last. Polite, softly spoken, warm, informal, humourous, and most importantly, easy to talk to. But still things did not improve significantly. Though the Counsellor helped me address some of my familial concerns, on a wider scale, all about me I found myself cast adrift and unsupported. My husband had his own problems, as did his parents, and my parents. I found it difficult to talk about my menstrual problems and fear of infertility without becoming very emotional, so responded by pushing such issues to the back of my mind. Support from my Gynaecologist was non-existent; support from E.N.T. non-forthcoming; support from any Doctor at my G.P. surgery haphazard, at best. To cap it all, my employers' attitude towards me was HORRENDOUS. Absolutely
no empathy or understanding, whatsoever. Clearly, it was felt that a woman should cope unaided with moving house, bereavement, family illness, personal illness, a distressed husband, a distraught mother-in-law, psychotic mother, and frustrated father!
Jump forwards in time! Several years later, I now have a much better understanding as to why such negative and unhelpful attitudes proliferated about me. I HAVE SEEN MY MEDICAL RECORDS. And, let me say, they were a revelation!
I have been able to identify the fact that, during the period above, of which I talked, the following things were happening...
- Diagnosed by G.P. in 2006 with Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome (M.E.): but I was neither informed nor treated.
- Respiratory infections clearly documented, as far back as 1996, as Chronic Sinusitis, but from about 2007 onwards, Doctors at my G.P. surgery appeared to treat recurrent infections as isolated incidents (Acute Sinusitis?).
- A recent C.T. scan in 2010 revealed several things wrong with my sinuses, any or all of which might cause, or exacerbate, my infections; including deviated septum, concha bullosa, hypoplasia (under-development/absence) of left frontal sinus, mucus cyst; but my E.N.T. consultant had failed to disclose any of this to me.
- My Gynaecologist had misdiagnosed me with Polycystic Ovaries in 2006, despite not having the requisite test results to diagnose them (women with Polycystic Ovaries have raised Testosterone levels, which I did not). He had also failed to consider any other possible diagnosis.
- Not one, but two reports had been sent by my G.P. surgeries (different surgeries, but BOTH connected by geographical location) to my employers without my knowledge, or consent. One was some time in 1997, and the other some time around 2006. I had no idea whatsoever of what information (or misinformation) was contained in those reports. This constitutes a serious breach of my Human Rights, as well as of patient confidentiality, and a breach of the Access To Medical Reports Act, 1988.
- Truly offensive personal remarks had been written about me in my Medical Records (seriously unethical, I do believe!!), including the following "corkers"...
Written by my Gynaecologist, Mr. M. S. (Blackpool):
"Thanks for asking me to see this lady. You say that she has been told by a previous practice that she has polycystic ovary syndrome, she certainly has erratic periods and complains of acne. She also complains of many other symptoms and it is obvious that anxiety is perhaps a major one. She basically more or less avoids sex so the comment that she would like to conceive is unlikely to occur!"
(Quoted verbatim from undated letter to G.P. Dr. G.).
It is to be noted that I had NOT been told by a "previous practice" about Polycystic Ovaries, but that the telling me I had Polycystic Ovaries took place in Mr. M. S.'s Gynaecology Department. It is also to be noted that Mr. M. S. is a Gynaecologist and NOT a Psychiatrist so his assumption that "anxiety" is "obviously" "perhaps" a "major symptom" is spurious and ill-founded at best. Besides, something is either obviously OR perhaps a symptom, it CANNOT be both. Obvious would indicate that it cannot be argued with, it can be seen by all. Perhaps implies doubt. (Here, I would suggest that Mr. M. S. receives a valuable lesson in the usage of the English language!). Finally, it is to be noted that a woman in pain may well avoid sex. However, as Mr. M. S. was not at that time, nor has ever been, my partner, husband or boyfriend (Ugh! The thought disgusts me!) he had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of my intimate relations. Furthermore, he yet again makes the same error of writing "basically more or less avoids" - either I avoid, or I do not! Which is it, Mr. M. S.? If you do not know, then surely it is most prudent to write nothing.
And these absolute beauties written by "Counsellor" Mrs. J. F., and her unidentified associate C. (Lancaster):
" needs to modify her behaviour towards others as it tends to alienate others towards her."
(Quoted verbatim from counselling assessment dated 31/07/1997).
This one particularly confuses me, for a variety of reasons: a) it is not backed up by any examples of the ways I "alienate others"; b) counsellors are supposed to be non-judgemental, and suggesting that somebody should modify their behaviour to suit others, especially when no understanding of how those other people are behaving exists, is extremely judgemental; c) counsellors are not supposed to blame patients for their problems. Without identifying who the other people are that I am allegedly "alienating", and without giving examples of both their behaviour and mine, in order to prove that I am at fault, and not others, then this statement is rendered invalid. It is not a qualified statement, just a subjective opinion.
"I discussed situation with Dr. G.. I think (my name) will distort information and think I am rejecting her which fits in with her view of things."
(Quoted verbatim from notes by J. F. dated 18/09/1997).
This worries me intensely, as it demonstrates a breach of patient confidentiality. I ought to have been informed that Dr. G. was to be consulted. Furthermore, it is evident that the Counsellor, and not me, is attempting to distort information. Otherwise, why would she need to jump in with the comment "I think (my name) will distort information", before discussing the facts with me? She has told the Doctor her version of events, alone, and wants to make absolutely sure that I do not get to present mine - she has additionally ensured that, even if I do, it will not be believed.
It is also interesting that the Counsellor demonstrates a terible lack of self-awareness during this incident. She additionally demonstrates a lack of basic counselling skills. Patients attend counselling to attempt to resolve traumatic and often paiinful events in their lives; including bereavement, abuse, bullying, divorce, separation, loss. People do not attend Counselling just for something to do; meaning that they have therefore not experienced a traumatic event. The experiencing of trauma can lead a person to feel all kinds of negative emotions, and to fear all sorts of negative outcomes. It is evident that a person attending counselling may well fear rejection, loss, further distress... a counsellor ought to be well aware of such facts, and well prepared to deal with them. To suggest that a patient is "distorting information" by fearing rejection; especially where a Counsellor is well aware that the person has talked previously of this and has admitted to such a fear; is in effect blaming the patient for having that fear in the first place. People go to see Counsellors in the hope that they will be afforded the opportunity to talk through difficult and often painful issues, or life events, in a non-judgemental and supportive environment. The last thing that they are looking for is further blaming, criticism and recriminations.
"I was struck by her rather Lady McBeth appearance."
(Quoted verbatim from undated report written by the elusive C. {who, it is to be noted, MOST UNPROFESSIONALLY, DID NOT give her surname or professional qualifications}).
"Have a feeling that her motivation to be succesful at the tribunal exceeds her motivation to work towards feeling well at this time."
(Quoted verbatim from same report as above).
Oh, do these comments make me feel sick! After all, counselling is not character assassination! A person's appearance has nothing to do with anything that goes on within a counselling session - prejudice has no place in counselling. Besides, what exactly is "Lady McBeth appearance"? As far as I can recall, I did not ever attend a counselling session in full Medieval costume! And I am certain my recollection is accurate! (Had I done so, I doubt I would ever have escaped "sectioning" to a Psychiatric Hospital!!).
At the time of the counselling, I was off work with stress. I had also been through a pretty rough time, having not long before had surgery to my sinuses (remember that I have chronic sinus problems?). I had returned to work to find myself facing a false allegation made by a colleague who, unsurprisingly, wished to remain anonymous. This had upset me immensely, as I suspected that the fabricated allegation had been made by a colleague with whom I had, up until that point, been on good terms. I had been due to attend her Hen Party, but had been obliged to cancel, and I had requested that she return to me my deposit (paid in advance for a meal and night out which I could now no longer attend). I believe that she had taken offence at this, and had ever afterwards refused to be civil to me. She had never returned my money (thief!). I felt that it was highly likely that this girl, or one of her close friends, was behind the lie. The allegation had been investigated, and found to be insubstantiated, and thus I was then involved in consultation about a return to work. I did not wish to return to the same office as previously, as I feared having to work alongside the colleague who had lied about me (I was unaware as to whether they had been disciplined). I had sought the assistance of a Union Representative to help arrange a transfer, so I could return to work. I was not involved in a tribunal, had not ever contemplated starting a tribunal, and did not intend to commence tribunal proceedings. There were no thoughts whatsoever on my behalf of being "motivated to succeed at tribunal" because there WAS NO TRIBUNAL.
I simply wanted to de-stress and move to a job where I felt more appreciated.
-------------------------------
Apologies to any of you who think I may have digressed... but, in actuality, here beginneth the lesson...
I have learned a great deal from the above scenario about the problems people have with individual differences. I have learned both about my own ignorance, and about the ignorance of others. I have learned that it is all too easy to go into situations with pre-conceived ideas, and to fall foul of this very fact. I have learned that people all too often pre-judge others, based frequently upon assumptions, rather than upon accurate knowledge and information. I have learned that such judgements are far too regularly the result of erroneous decision making; that they are based on shallow, and often somewhat glib, stereotyping of others. That humans make judgements of others; judgements that can have far-reaching consequences; in split-seconds, based on such superficial things as dress sense, skin colour, whether a person is good-looking. These are not the criteria by which we should judge others. To apply such criteria in our judgements of others is to reveal ourselves as shallow, prejudiced and narrow-minded. We can, perhaps, all learn from what I have learned.
So... what did I learn?
First of all, allow me to say that this has been an uncomfortable experience for me, as it has shown to me the extent of my own ignorance. I now bare that to all. Judge as you may...
I have learned many things; here are just a few of the choicest:
- Do not make assumptions that because a person holds a position of authority they a) deserve it, b) earned it, c) are trustworthy, and d) do not have any hidden prejudices of their own. I made this fatal error when assuming that because an individual was employed as a Counsellor, then they would automatically be empathic, caring, supportive and easy to talk to. I also assumed they would not be judgemental. I was very wrong. I had entered counselling with a pre-concieved notion of what I thought a Counsellor would be like. In reality, the Counsellor I saw was a person with considerable prejudices, who judged on appearance, and who jumped to conclusions before knowing the full facts. I had simply seen a bad Counsellor. There are plenty of others out there who may be perfectly good. Yet, I had to face the disappointment of realising that this Counsellor was not what I had expected. The truth is that anyone, no matter how lowly or how prestigious their role, can be good or bad, caring or uncaring, trustworthy or an utter liar, objective, or completely prejudicial. Remember, Harold Shipman was a "trusted" Doctor, and Beverly Allitt a "caring" Nurse. These two serial killers hid behind such masks, because the assumptions of others allowed them to (1).
- Do not set yourself up for a fall by expecting something a person cannot deliver, or by automatically expecting a negative. This is very much tied in with the above, for, if one forms expectations of a person's traits, behaviour and personality before actually meeting that person, they may likely be wrong. They are based upon erroneous assumptions stemming from "hearsay" alone. After all, what is a job title? What does it actually mean to be, for example, a Counsellor? Does the title denote the person? Does any other single piece of "information" denote a person, in the absence of other facts? Are they defined by their colour, race, age, gender... for example? Let me extend this further... Imagine you are told before meeting Mr. X that he is a Moslem. Do you allow that to influence your thoughts, and prejudice your expectations of what Mr.X will be like? Do you automatically expect him to be of an ethnic minority background? Do you automatically expect him only to eat certain foods? Do you see him dressed in a turban, or a headcloth, bearded and in traditional Islamic dress? Do you expect him to be intolerant of "westerners", especially women? A fundamentalist? A fanatical teetotaller, forever praying at his Mosque? A terrorist? Surely, even in allowing one's thoughts to wander a little way along this path, one is in danger of them "running away" with a completely fallacious notion. Mr. X might be nothing at all like what you have imagined. Such is the danger of imagination. Allow it to "run wild" and, before you know, it has run straight to the front door of prejudice!
- Do not judge solely on appearance. In fact, try to avoid such "snap judgements" altogether. Humans seem to be very prone to making this error; they also seem to repeat it, over and over again. For some difficult to define reason, humans appear to respond very quickly to "new" acquaintances and "new" situations by making "snap judgements". What this basically means, is that they make a rapid assessment of the situation, and draw a conclusion - sadly, this may be based upon inadequate facts. Whilst such an ability to make quick decisions may once have had evolutionary benefits; when used in making assessments of unfamiliar situations, or people, it may be disastrous. Imagine. You are introduced to Miss. Y for the first time at a friend's party. Miss. Y is standing alone by the buffet table, plate of food in hand. You note that she is thin, and her plate only holds some salad, and a small sausage roll. Miss. Y is also very pale, dressed in a short, black leather skirt and black lace top. You note she has tattoos, and a pierced nose. Is this enough to "judge" Miss. Y by? After all, I'd put money on it that many of you are already in the process of forming an opinion! Allow me to give you a few suggestions... I'd bet that your quick mental "assessment" of Miss. Y may include the words "Goth", "Rocker", "possible anorexic", "loner", "doesn't eat much". Did you also allow the mention of the short black skirt and lacy top to lead you in the direction of "tarty", for example, or maybe even "slutty"? Did you allow the mention of tattoos and piercings to dredge up the words "weirdo", or "oddball"? Did they take root in your mind? Yet again, you are knocking on the front door of prejudice! You cannot know, based upon such a brief encounter, the true nature of Miss. Y. Remember, Ted Bundy was a charismatic fellow, always neatly turned out in immaculate suits. He was also a psychopath, and before people had realised his true nature, had murdered numerous innocent women. Even this is not the complete truth, as there is another side to Bundy's story - possible abuse at the hands of family members, and confusion about his personal identity, due to having been brought up by his grandparents because his mother gave birth to him illegitimately (2).
- Avoid "labelling" or "pigeonholing" people. "Labels" and "pigeonholes" can be dangerous - for you, and for the recipient of such behaviour. It is all too easy to slip into the habit of making sweeping generalisations about people, and situations. After all, finding out all the facts takes time. Therefore, we often try to make use of "labels" and "pigeonholes" as a sort of "shorthand"; we attempt to allocate a person to a particular "niche" in life, perhaps in the vain hope that this will help us to remember who that person actually is. Sadly, this is only a vain attempt at true recollection. Yes, our memory is aided in its function by association of ideas; so, we could argue that to attribute a "label" is helpful, in that it is a quick source of reference. But what if the label is misleading? What if the shorthand is wrong? In truth, as I have already pointed out (by now, several times) nobody can be defined by one mere attribute. So, "labels" and "pigeonholes" as "shorthand" do not work. In fact, their usage can show us to be narrow-minded, bigoted and lazy. They often serve only to stereotype individuals, reducing them to mere caricatures of themselves. Furthermore, "labelling" and "pigeonholing" people can, at its worst, be offensive and demeaning. All too often, "labels" may actually be little more than thinly disguised insults. Think about some of the common "labels" you may have heard... "the disabled", "the elderly", "spastic", "mad", "lesbo", "Paki"... not very pleasant, are they? Pretty much de-humanising, really! Such "labels" serve to highlight only one aspect of that individual, and all too often this is an aspect that others perceive as negative. Thus, "labelling" and "pigeonholing" are insulting. There is a lot more to any individual than just one "tag".
- Be aware that none of us can truly know what goes on behind the "facade" that many of us present to the world. Human beings are animals, and all animals have basic survival instincts. One of those is to "bluff" (quite simply, the pretence that one's position is stronger than it actually is; a deception by a false show of confidence). Just think about it in relation to the world of nature - toads that puff themselves up to twice their regular size in order to intimidate rivals; the lion's mane, to make it look bigger and stronger than it really is; the hoverfly, with it's black and yellow stripes, that make it look more like the vicious, stinging wasp, than the harmelss, and somewhat vulnerable insect it really is. People are exactly the same. The "power-suited" man with his sports car, motorbikes, and boasting of earning "megabucks" might actually be a pathetically inadequate braggart, married to a "battleaxe", and living off welfare benefits. The woman showing off her "spectacular weight loss" might actually have resorted to a gastric band and liposuction. The so-called successful entrepreneur, with several limited companies to his portfolio, might actually be a compulsive liar, fraudster, and have a trail of liquidated businesses and unpaid debts behind him. Behind the brave face shown to the world by each and any one of us may be bereavement, divorce, abuse, childlessness, chronic illness... Behind the veneer of social-climbing business manager may be insecurity, lack of competence, narcissism, poor qualifications, a "doctored" Curriculum Vitae, psychopathic tendencies, and a bully. FACT: you never really know what you are dealing with, unless you truly make an efort to get to know a person well. "First impressions count" is an adage we could well do without. "First impressions mislead" is perhaps somewhat more accurate.
- Remember that people can change. This is very important, as it serves to further emphasise the dangers of all of the above. Once you have effectively pigeonholed or stereotyped a person, you are not allowing for any deviation from that stereotype. Therefore, you are not allowing for that person's ability to change, and to develop. Think back! How might you like to be remembered forever as the moody teenager you might once have been? Or would you like to be labelled forever a "whinger", simply because you cried at your grandparent's funeral? Might you wish to be forever branded a "failure" just because you could not pass your driving test, due to intense nerves, and an upset stomach? After all, you might now be a very happy adult, thank-you. You might like to add that it is perfectly usual to cry at funerals. You might wish to point out that after a second attempt with a more empathic driving instructor, you passed your test. Why should you be summed up for all eternity simply as the result of an action "frozen in time"? Besides, we are each and every one of us growing and developing, every day of our lives. We add experiences, and what we may have learned from them. It is, therefore, perfectly understandable that we may change.
- Beware of people who wish you to change in order just to fit in with them. Such people are not good for you. They are essentially bullies; a bully is an individual who seeks to undermine and destroy another, by way of constant criticism, threats, taunts, and demeaning of specific personal characteristics (often of a sensitive nature). Bullies injure self-esteem, damage confidence and take from their victims all that the victim holds dear, and is passionate about. At the end of the day, you are you. Each of us is different, with individual preferences, personality traits, lifestyle choices... these are the things that make us unique. Each of us ought to feel free to be us. It is not for others to tell us how to dress, or to behave, or to think. To attempt to erode a person's freedom to be who they are is to attempt to establish an imbalance of power in one's relationship with that person. To do so, is to bully. Our personal integrity is hugely important, as it is tied inextricably to our ethical and moral structure, and ought therefore rarely to be compromised.
Whatever happened to integrity? Whatever happened to such other once-important values, like honesty, impartility, tolerance, openness...? Where have they gone in today's society? How has society changed so much, as to render such values invisible, or possibly even unimportant?
Today, we in the West live in a fast-paced, rapidly-changing and ultra-consumerist society. Lying, or at least "distorting the truth", appears to have become commonplace. It is almost as though we acknowledge that it takes place, and accept it happening. We appear powerless to challenge the politicians who make empty promises within their manifestos, accepting that they have come to power irrespective of their ability to make good that promise. We appear powerless to challenge the false advertising of innumerable large corporations, who happily rake in immense profits, whilst making claims of dubious merit in respect of their products. How often to they deliver the goods? How often are the claims true? We appear powerless to challenge the endless hikes in fuel and energy prices, whilst listening to the energy companies' pathetic excuses that they "must raise petrol prices at the pump because fuel is so much more costly to them", or "must raise energy bills because the gas they buy now costs more". Is this true? Where is the evidence to prove it? And besides, if, as they claim, they are spending more to purchase this energy and fuel for us, then how come they continue to turn a massive profit?
If we accept that this is the way in which groups, organisations and large corporations may conduct themselves, then does that mean that we also accept that such behaviour is o.k. for the individual? Every day, we are bombarded with messages about the sort of people we ought to be. Many of these messages come via the media - television, magazines, newspapers. Most, if not all, are directly or indirectly aimed at trying to sell us something. By appealing to us directly through our lifestyle choices; our clothes, our hairstyles, our posessions; producers are "able to get into out heads". They "sell" to us the possibility of what might be - always a little better than what we have now, always "aspirational". They tell us that to drive their car will get us noticed. That their hair product will make us look perfectly groomed. That their dress will make us look slim and beautiful. That if we install their fitted kitchen it will be admired by all our friends. That if we wear their aftershave we will attract all the pretty women. ABSOLUTE GUFF! But we fall for it!
We do not question the fact that the product they are attempting to peddle is almost always "dressed up tp the nines" - promoted to us via an "all singing, all dancing" extravoganza of an advertisement. It's all "bells, whistles and bunting"! The "couple" in the advert with their "adorable children" are all professional "supermodals". They are all perfectly fit, perfectly healthy, and perfectly behaved; as are their "pets" (if animals are included in the sales pitch). Any "house" featured will be huge, and immaculately decorated. Any "car" will be top-of-the-range. Everything is larger than life!
Why do we allow this? Why do we allow a society that attempts to tell us who we should be, and what we should look like? That puts "models" and "celebrities" on pedestals, endlessly bleating that they are what we should aspire to? WHY?
THIS IS NOT REALITY. Are we really so shallow and so gullible as to believe otherwise?
Humans appear to have a very peculiar ability - it is the ability to behave one way in private, and another in public. Not everybody behaves in this manner - that is a question of personal integrity. The stronger one's integrity, the less likely it is that one will change one's behaviour to fit in. To fit in with what? As I have said, it is a peculiar thing, that a person may be so easily persuaded to adopt a specific viewpoint, simply because it is the group consensus. That does not automatically make it correct.
Apartheid in South Africa was once the "group consensus" - that did NOT make it correct. Genocide was once the "group consensus" amongst members of the Nazi Party - that did NOT make it correct. A large number of people in Victorian England believed that mentally ill people ought to be placed forever in Asylums - that did NOT make it correct. Many people today believe that physically and mentally disabled people are incapable fo holding down a job - that does NOT make such a view correct. The mere fact that a large number of people believe something to be true, does not automatically make it so. On the contrary...
Humans are social beings. This means that they live, or are disposed to live, in companionship with others; or in a community; rather than in isolation. "Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god." (3). Clearly, there are benefits to livig in society, such as safety in numbers. Living societally also helps us to access other things that may prove to be of benefit to us, such as health care, housing, welfare benefits, child care facilities, provision of food and clothing... things that we often consider to be essential to daily life. However, there is a trade-off. To live as part of a society means also that one needs to be accepted by that society. Acceptance often, if not always, depends upon following societal rules and regulations. It means behaving in a manner that can be considered "normal", conventional. It does not mean "bucking the trend".
Hang on a moment! Isn't this all a little prescriptive? A little dogmatic? A wee bit too focussed on the "normative" (whatever that may be)? Society tells us how to behave, how to be. It lays down strictures. IT ASKS, NAY, DEMANDS, SOMETHING OF US. It demands that we be acceptable.
But to whom? Yes, society is made up of people. But, as I have already pointed out, not all people are equal. A perverse fact about society is that some people have more "value" - more power - than others. Such people lay down the rules. Remember what I told you about politicians, celebrities, the media? Well, same applies to others who experience privilege; the wealthy, nobility, the ruling classes, heads of big businesses... These are the people who get to tell the rest of us how to live.
A little closer to home, there is an additional level of potential influencers - ouir families, our friends, our peers, our colleagues. Where humans live societally, there is generally an exchange of ideas. However, such exchanges can sometimes result in an imbalance, particularly where one side in the exchange has more power than the other. This is how some ideas, thoughts, beliefs, ideologies come to predominate. Think about it...
Why do we live in a society that appears to tell us that material goods are a measure of success? Why are women lead to believe that impossibly stick thin, with enormous breasts, glowing orange skin, fake hair, fake nails, fake eyelashes, caked in makeup and squeezed into a dress that would under close scrutiny prove to be too small and too tight even for a pre-pubescent girl, let alone an adult woman... why are we lead to believe that this is the epitome of feminine beauty? Why are men still hooked in by the old (nay, Neanderthal!) "breadwinner" drivel - the fast car, sharp suit, simpering and fawning blonde on the arm? Why is the most beautiful skin white; not black, or tan, or tawny, or dusky? Why are birthmarks embarrassing? Why is Down's Syndrome unacceptable? Why is being in a wheelchair, or having Schizophrenia, or being unable to have children... shameful? Why is gay or lesbian marriage taboo? WHY?
Who made all these "rules"?
Someone, somewhere in our "society" made them. And whilst we fail to challenge them, then each and every one of us is guilty of allowing them to persist. We are brought up with such notions, indoctrinated - they are ingrained in our psyche from a very early age. Ah, the wonders of "socialization"!
Yet we are all independent, conscious, thinking, sentient beings. That gives us the power to challenge. Once we learn to place ourselves in the shoes of others, so to speak; once we learn to empathise; we also learn the benefits of questioning what is about us. We learn not to take for granted. We can see from a different perspective. We see through someone else's eyes. And that can be a revelation!
Ask yourself this...
The fact that a man, woman, or child has black skin... does it harm you in any way? Does it hurt you? Does it change your life, in any way?
The fact that your neighbour, or the bloke down the street, or that girl in the office is in a wheelchair... is it affecting you? Is it in any way stopping you getting on with your life?
The fact that some guy on a news program got engaged to another guy... how on earth is that impacting upon your life? What has it changed, for you?
I suspect that the answer to each and every question is truly revealing. Answer them subjectively, and I don't doubt that your prejudices and your erroneous judgements will play some part in your response. Answer them objectively, and the fact is that the colour of someone else's skin, or their being in a wheelchair, or homosexual, has no effect on YOU whatsoever.
It's back to this all over again... do you judge on first impressions, or do you hold your judgement (or, better still, try not to judge at all)?
Remember, there will always be opinions circulating. Now that we live within a society, it is hard for us to go back. We cannot now escape the fact that the media exist - television, radio, cinema, newspapers and magazines - all thrusting their opinions, their viewpoints at us; all telling us who to be, how to live, what to look like. We cannot escape the fashion industry, the food industry, the luxury goods industry, the holiday industry... all with something to sell us. We cannot escape Politicians, "spin-doctors", television "experts", celebrities... telling us how to do things, how to live. We cannot escape our families, peers, friends, colleagues... all with their "ten-penneceworth".
Do we always give in?
If (and I sneakily suspect that it will not be) the answer is a resounding "yes", then please, I entreat you to (metaphorically speaking) go off and contemplate suicide. After all, you have just killed yourself. YOUR TRUE SELF. Are you really telling me that you wish to live out your whole life always at the whim of another? That you are so powerless as to never assert yourself? That you wish always to be dictated to, given orders, put under pressure? To the end of your days?
I suspect a wee tad of hypocrisy, here! Know why? Well, I'd put money on it (if I were a gambling sort!) that you did not do everything in your life the same way as everyone else. I'd put money on it that you do not look like everyone else. Is your car the same as everyone else's down your street? Do you all have 2.4 children? Do you do the same job as everyone you are related to? Is your hair styled the same as your mother's? Are your living room curtains and carpet the same as Great Uncle Fred's? Do you even have a Great Uncle Fred?
If I have inadvertently described any one of you, then... that's just freaky! There was no intention whatsoever! I meant only to illustrate a point...
It is highly unlikely that each and every one of us will identify with everything I asked, and respond affirmatively to every question. We are all individuals. We have different tastes, and different preferences. And that's just fine. It really is.
So, let's step back a little and see the world from a different perspective. We don't all have to look like models, or have "Hello Magazine" styled weddings. We don't all have to worship the same God - or any God, for that matter. We don't all have to listen to Elvis, or admire Cheryl Cole, or aspire to being David Beckham. We don't all have to live in the same sort of home, or drive the same car, or eat the same foods, or do the same job, or get the same qualifications... Nobody has the right to tell us otherwise. That is a violation.
Some of us are black, some white, some Hispanic, others Asian... Some of us are gay, some straight. Some of us choose to have children, and some do not; yet others cannot have children, whether they would like to, or not. Some of us are good at Maths, some prefer English, others Art, Music, French, Geography, Physics... Some of us achieve GCSEs, others go on to PHDs. Some gain no qualifications at all. Some of us marry, others remain single. Some of us are "homebodies", others are career orientated. Some of us stay rooted in one place, others travel extensively. Some are introverts, others extroverts. Some are practical, others more intellectual, or creative. Some of us wear skirts, some trousers, yet others Saris, Shalwar Kameez, veils, turbans, Kimonos, kilts... You get the picture.
We do not, any one of us, know what is behind the "facade" that another person presents us with. If all we see is that "facade", and that is what we base judgements on, the we are highly likely to get it wrong. It takes time to get to know somebody; and even then, there may be things we never truly get to know. A person may choose to reveal, or they may choose to keep hidden. They may be open, or "play their cards close to their chest". That is yet another example of difference.
We cannot avoid diversity. It exists, and we should accept that it exists. It is not healthy for us to live in a world which attempts to force everything, and everyone, to be "the same". After all; as I asked at the start of this "essay"; what kind of "same" would we all be? We are all different, and it is not good to be made to fear difference, to engender prejudice and discrimination on the basis of difference. Homogeneity does not exist, so why are we perversely attempting to enforce it? Our fear of difference is born of ignorance. Pressure to "all be the same" brings out the very worst in us.
Any of you ever read Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four"? I did. It was frightening!
---------------------------
Bibliography/References:
1. "Angel Of Mercy (Criminology)", at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_Mercy_(criminology)
2. "Profile Of Serial Killer Ted Bundy", at crime.about.com>News & Issues>Crime/Punishment>Serial Killers
3. "Politics" by Aristotle, at classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html
RSS Feed