A few years ago, Brooke Shields wrote a book about her experience with postpartum depression (PPD) entitled “Down Came the Rain.” In that book, she wrote about how she struggled with feelings of disconnection and even thoughts of violence towards her newborn baby. Because there are dominant cultural discourses that mothers shouldn’t have these kinds of thoughts/feelings, she was ashamed (negative identity) and scared to tell anyone (guards). She eventually sought treatment, which included medication, and found it to be very helpful. Part of that treatment also included being exposed to a helpful alternative discourse about her experience - that she had PPD, and this was a biological reaction to her body’s chemicals, not an indication of her “goodness” or fitness as a mother. She learned of other women diagnosed with PPD who were “normal” before giving birth, were looking forward to having their baby, and once treated, were able to be the mothers they wanted to be – and this further reinforced that alternative discourse. So she wrote the book to “take the mute button off” (her words) or challenge the dominant discourse that resulted in women being silent about their experiences because of shame - and to make a potentially more helpful alternative discourse more visible and available to others.
Or at least that’s one way to look at it (one story that can be told).
Enter Tom Cruise. Tom had a very different take on Brooke’s book. He publicly criticized her book for promoting what he sees as problematic dominant discourses – those of psychiatric diagnoses and the need for medication to treat them. He in turn was criticized for criticizing her and this led to pretty contentious interview with Matt Lauer on the “Today” show. As you watch the clip of this interview below, think about how the class concepts of discourses (both dominant and alternative), deconstruction, social & historical context, social location, power, positioning, identity, and effects apply to what’s happening in the conversation between Matt and Tom and help us make sense out of the meanings that are being constructed.
So Tom is doing a very interesting thing – he’s deconstructing. He’s talking about the historical context of psychiatry, he’s talking about the social context of uses and abuses of medication. And in doing so, he is challenging the discourses that legitimize the medical establishment’s enormous power to define reality through diagnoses. He’s also challenging the “Big Pharma” and the promotion of powerful drugs as “the answer” to people’s problems, despite the fact that they often have serious side effects. He seems genuinely concerned about the potential for a “brave new world” where everyone is taking mind-altering drugs for whatever they have been labeled with, and the negative effects that could have on people.
So that’s a potentially positive thing, right? Then why does he come across as so obnoxious? Why are people criticizing him?
It’s how he challenges these discourses, and how he engages with Matt Lauer – he is declaring what is True and Real for everyone. And by positioning himself in this way – as the expert or the “one who knows the Truth” – he becomes a guard, regardless of whether or not he’s promoting a dominant or an alternative discourse.
He declares the Truths that “Psychiatry is a pseudoscience” and “There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.” “Drugs are never the answer” and “You don’t understand the history of psychiatry, and I do.” He’s “read the research.” From a social constructionist perspective, these are discourses that he’s internalized (it’s not about whether he’s right or wrong). But since he sees them as “the Truth,” that means any other perspective is necessarily “wrong.” This is why he is so adamant that people’s experiences to the contrary – i.e. Brooke or Matt’s friends being helped by medication – don’t really matter. They can’t be true because they don’t fit with what he “knows” to be really True.
So the effect of him promoting the discourses he’s internalized as Truth (even though they could be considered alternative) is to devalue other people’s experiences that don’t fit with that Truth. Matt tries to point this out when he says – “Isn’t there the possibility that this works for some people?” and “You are telling me that your experiences with people I know – which are 0 – are more important than my experiences” in which he’s seen them benefit from medication.
Brooke Shields publicly responded to this interview by saying, “While Mr. Cruise says that Mr. Lauer and I do not ‘understand the history of psychiatry,’ I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Mr. Cruise has never suffered from postpartum depression.” She’s pointing out the effect that their differing social locations has on how they are positioned and positioning themselves in relationship to this issue. From a social constructionist perspective, this doesn’t mean she’s more “right” than he is. Rather, their different social locations lead to differences in their access to discourses, on how they are positioned, and the effects of those positions – and this impacts their experiences and the meanings constructed around them.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
On a Break -- Week 6 Social Constructionist Therapy
As we’ve discussed in class, social constructionism shows us how we can use language to define and redefine our experiences – that is we can use different discourses to make meaning of our experiences – and how this process of redefining can create flexibility and positive effects for people in general, AND clients in therapy.
A few lectures back, we discussed an example in lecture of how someone could define an “affair” in different ways, and how this definition might actually change their reality about it.
We want to revisit that idea here because the very notion of someone “redefining an affair” can be disconcerting to some people. For many, especially people in committed relationships who expect their partners not to have sex with other people, it doesn’t sit well that someone can just redefine what an affair is – that they might redefine it as something that isn’t bad or wrong, which would let them “off the hook” so they could be justified in not feeling guilty about it.
This example really highlights the social part of social constructionism. No one exists by themselves – we are always in relationships, and so we are surrounded by people who are making meaning just as we are. Sometimes the way people make sense of our experiences/behavior doesn’t have much of an effect on us or them – maybe you don’t really care what your dad thinks about the way you dress, so you feel pretty comfortable making sense of the way you dress the way you want. Other times, particularly when your experience/behavior really impacts a relationship you are in, the way other people make sense of it (the discourses they use) has MAJOR effects. It will impact whether they decide to continue the relationship, it will impact how they talk about what you did to other people – like friends, kids, etc. – and that will impact how those people see you, and therefore your relationships with them. So while you always have the option to define something in a particular way – to use certain discourses and not others – you aren’t the ONLY person who is making meaning of that situation, you aren’t the ONLY person constructing reality – it’s a social process with real life implications.
Although this clip is quite old (from 1997) – for anyone who has watched “Friends” reruns, it is pretty classic and really illustrates this exact issue.
The context is this: Ross and Rachel have a major argument, at the end of which Rachel suggests that they “take a break” in terms of their relationship. Ross is very upset, and ends up having sex with another woman. Ross and Rachel reconcile the next day, but then Rachel finds out that Ross had sex with this other woman. Rachel is hurt and angry and says that Ross “cheated” on her. Ross claims that he didn’t because they were “on a break.” Each of them define being “on a break” in a different way, and so what Ross did means something very different to each of them. And Rachel’s refusal to accept Ross’s definition/meaning of what happened has major effects for both of them.
You only have to watch the first minute of this clip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEn9YvJ3Gfg&NR=1
So what would a social constructionist therapist do if this couple came to counseling?
Well, first, they would NOT see it as their job “to decide what is true” or who is right and who is wrong. Many couples come into therapy thinking that what they need is a referee, a neutral party, to decide who is right and wrong (each partner, of course, thinking the therapist should side with them). For a social constructionist, what is important is WHY it is important for Ross to define what he did in his way (to reaffirm his identity as a nice guy, for it to make sense given his love for Rachel, etc.) and why it is important for Rachel to define what he did in her way (to make sense of her hurt feelings, to make sure it never happens again, etc.). Who knows how the conversation in therapy will turn out??? And that’s exactly the point – the meaning is being socially constructed in the moment of doing therapy. No one person – not Ross, not Rachel, not the therapist (if they were in therapy) has control over the “final” meaning(s), only the meaning they choose to adopt for themselves. And no one person has control over the effects of those meanings. That’s the challenge of living in a socially constructed world – we have agency (the ability to make choices), BUT we don’t control all the meanings and effects of the choices we make. THIS is the value of social constructionist therapy, as it can acknowledge this complexity in order to help people come away with meanings/discourses that are more helpful/less harmful to them (and their relationships).
A few lectures back, we discussed an example in lecture of how someone could define an “affair” in different ways, and how this definition might actually change their reality about it.
We want to revisit that idea here because the very notion of someone “redefining an affair” can be disconcerting to some people. For many, especially people in committed relationships who expect their partners not to have sex with other people, it doesn’t sit well that someone can just redefine what an affair is – that they might redefine it as something that isn’t bad or wrong, which would let them “off the hook” so they could be justified in not feeling guilty about it.
This example really highlights the social part of social constructionism. No one exists by themselves – we are always in relationships, and so we are surrounded by people who are making meaning just as we are. Sometimes the way people make sense of our experiences/behavior doesn’t have much of an effect on us or them – maybe you don’t really care what your dad thinks about the way you dress, so you feel pretty comfortable making sense of the way you dress the way you want. Other times, particularly when your experience/behavior really impacts a relationship you are in, the way other people make sense of it (the discourses they use) has MAJOR effects. It will impact whether they decide to continue the relationship, it will impact how they talk about what you did to other people – like friends, kids, etc. – and that will impact how those people see you, and therefore your relationships with them. So while you always have the option to define something in a particular way – to use certain discourses and not others – you aren’t the ONLY person who is making meaning of that situation, you aren’t the ONLY person constructing reality – it’s a social process with real life implications.
Although this clip is quite old (from 1997) – for anyone who has watched “Friends” reruns, it is pretty classic and really illustrates this exact issue.
The context is this: Ross and Rachel have a major argument, at the end of which Rachel suggests that they “take a break” in terms of their relationship. Ross is very upset, and ends up having sex with another woman. Ross and Rachel reconcile the next day, but then Rachel finds out that Ross had sex with this other woman. Rachel is hurt and angry and says that Ross “cheated” on her. Ross claims that he didn’t because they were “on a break.” Each of them define being “on a break” in a different way, and so what Ross did means something very different to each of them. And Rachel’s refusal to accept Ross’s definition/meaning of what happened has major effects for both of them.
You only have to watch the first minute of this clip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEn9YvJ3Gfg&NR=1
So what would a social constructionist therapist do if this couple came to counseling?
Well, first, they would NOT see it as their job “to decide what is true” or who is right and who is wrong. Many couples come into therapy thinking that what they need is a referee, a neutral party, to decide who is right and wrong (each partner, of course, thinking the therapist should side with them). For a social constructionist, what is important is WHY it is important for Ross to define what he did in his way (to reaffirm his identity as a nice guy, for it to make sense given his love for Rachel, etc.) and why it is important for Rachel to define what he did in her way (to make sense of her hurt feelings, to make sure it never happens again, etc.). Who knows how the conversation in therapy will turn out??? And that’s exactly the point – the meaning is being socially constructed in the moment of doing therapy. No one person – not Ross, not Rachel, not the therapist (if they were in therapy) has control over the “final” meaning(s), only the meaning they choose to adopt for themselves. And no one person has control over the effects of those meanings. That’s the challenge of living in a socially constructed world – we have agency (the ability to make choices), BUT we don’t control all the meanings and effects of the choices we make. THIS is the value of social constructionist therapy, as it can acknowledge this complexity in order to help people come away with meanings/discourses that are more helpful/less harmful to them (and their relationships).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)