Brooke & Tom -- Week 6 Social Constructionist Therapy

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.