"Stigma Hurts!": Do We Only Have It Half Right?
Even with "illness," I am compelled to put it into quotation marks because mental illness might be relative, maybe sometimes subjective. Who deems another "mentally ill," after all? Was Vincent Van Gogh "mentally ill?" Or was he an individual who lived with schizophrenia, who heard voices in his ear so that he cut it off? Or was he just Vincent, living with the egomaniac Gauguin and after their fight, cut off the mere tip of his ear to get the argument out of his head? A shocking gesture, perhaps, and not unlike some other eccentric artists I have come across who have mutilated themselves (I am not going to judge here) -- for life, as some say, can imitate or even BE art. Still, Van Gogh, because he was so very eccentric, also thought himself mad and checked himself into a mental hospital towards the end of his life. Would he have if others had accepted him as he was? And yet, such intensity also came with his gift, his contribution to society in the way of his art. Art, like no other during his time. Art, that changed the way others viewed the world by way of his evolutionary brush strokes.
Quality of life is impacted when one lives with stigma and exclusion. The stigma lends itself to exclusion -- from jobs, from schools, from communities. The disabled say that their ability or dis-ability is effected by the way society understands and accomodates the disability. So it is wise to tread carefully as attributions of "mentally ill" might be social ones -- others might accuse us of being sick" or "ill" or "not normal" or "genetic abnormalities," like many do of autistic individuals, and the individual is neither delusional nor ill at all. So, as I applaud the fact that many Canadians are on the path to de-stigmatizing depression, schizophrenia and the like, I pause. Have we only got it half right? Are we still de-stigmatizing with one caveat: sure, we'll not stigmatize you as long as you get yourself recovered. Because as long as we truly keep ourselves in the dark, as long as we refuse to try and understand, we will continue to marginalize and make assumptions about others who are different.
Margaret Trudeau now advocates for the de-stigmatization of Mood Disorders. On their website, the homepage reads "Stigma Hurts!." It reads:
"Stigma has been defined as: Prejudice based on stereotypes, resulting in discrimination (Corrigan & Lundin, 2001). While public attitude towards some mental illnesses seems to be softening surveys also reveal that people with serious mental illness and addictions are seen to: lack intelligence, are lazy, morally reprehensible, violent and dangerous, have nothing to contribute to society and are unable to recover. People are routinely denied employment, access to health care, housing, insurance and mortgages. Discrimination denies full citizenship and equal rights.
It is this diminished view which allows individuals, communities, institutions and government to accept a reduced social and economic status for people with these conditions than we would accept for oneself. As a consequence stigma and discrimination towards people with mental illness, neurological conditions and addictions is under researched and poorly understood. There are no systems of surveillance in place to monitor the levels or changes in the degree of stigma and discrimination experienced within the general population.[i] We know that stigma is not experienced equally across all cultures, by all consumers or consistently across ones progress towards recovery.
A component of recovery includes rejecting self-stigma, and combating the negative attitudes and discriminatory practices through public education and advocacy. Studies of the magnitude and nature of stigma need to account for both the disease- specific and culture-specific aspects of stigma. However, little research has been done to identify those factors which protect people from the harmful effect of stigma or that promote a healthy progression toward acceptance."
Now off to the Mental Health Commission lead by former senator Michael Kirby. On that homepage, Kirby states:
"I look forward to the day when we can say that we live in a country that has put an end to the stigmatization of mental illness and has eliminated discrimination against people living with mental illness; to the day when we can say that we have put in place a truly seamless continuum of care across the lifespan that allows people living with mental illness to find their individual road to recovery."
Not all individuals feel they have anything to recover from when it comes to disability and I am also referring to autism when I am referring to disability. It is not a denial of the obstacles one can face with a particular disability. It is about where the pressure lies in terms of conforming. What and who "needs to change?" When de-stigmatizing something, we have to believe that there is nothing to recover from. In place of this notion, we might need to consider replacing "recovery" with "accepting and accomodating." We may have to put the type of assistance and education into the hands of the individual -- "self-determination" as it is often referred to. Further, one's quality of life is based on an individual's acceptance by others in their community, and this acceptance can lead to self-acceptance. It means that we treat others with equality and with sensitivity to their individual needs. It means that we learn to understand the issue or disability in order to learn how to educate autistic individuals and others with special needs in our schools.
The idea of acceptance is fundamental. Realizing what is reality for many individuals who have had to live in denial or suppression of their "way of being" has been, and continues to be, much more damaging.
We have to learn how to learn about autism rather than how we tend to ascribe it the other way around. We often say that autistic people need to "learn how to learn." Yet, we have to recognize what we mean by that. It means that "they have to learn how WE learn," while ignoring the fact that autistics learn in an autistic way. Autistic people learn. How can we learn how to teach them? Where is the two way street in special ed?
After speaking with many in the world of disability, a world that seems to be quickly becoming my own as I traverse it with Adam, the word "assistance" when it comes to autism seems much more appropriate -- "merging help with respect," say Norman Kunc and Emma Van Der Klift in their outstanding paper Hell Bent on Helping.
With so much money going into genetics research rather than research that seeks to understand autism and help autistics live rich lives with autism, we do not know how to teach, employ and interact or accomodate because our minds are on the goal of preventing, curing and recovering (can we say "saving") autistic people, literally, from themselves. Do we have this right? Or is our responsibility to learn and merge that teaching with respect for how autistics learn so that we learn to function in society with disabled people contributing to it?
We know that some individuals have more challenges than others and the levels of assistance differ. But as I continue to read the rhetoric, even if it seems positive and the goal is to achieve a world that de-stigmatizes the individual with either autism, another disability or mental illness, I scratch my head and wonder how the rhetoric will be used: to provide more fuel to the people who want to "recover" others, and change individuals so that they are "normal," or to provide the supports and assistance to enable people to live freely and comfortably in society as they are? In other words, do we value the individual who lives with the mental illness or disability, or do we value them ONLY when they recover or come as close to "recovery" as they can get?
As the Down Syndrome Society includes in its site this article from The Chronicle Herald:
Down syndrome: rights doomed by the media
By RENATE LINDEMAN
"Canada’s signing of the UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities on March 31, 2007, marked another milestone in advancing the rights of people with disabilities. It appears we have come a long way. People with Down syndrome are
included in their schools and communities, they get married, enjoy equal-opportunity employment. But beneath all this outward appearance of progress, a different message can be heard....
In Canada, this is not a heartening time to have Down syndrome....
The "value" of people with Down syndrome was being questioned over and over, as they were accused of being unproductive and a drain on resources. "Value" for society was only measured in terms of the ability to make money, and no value was placed on care, respect, acceptance or love. If society views people with Down syndrome as a "burden" in these times of abundance, what will happen if we face an economical recession? We cannot allow people with Down syndrome to be the scapegoat."
It comes down to value. It strikes me as odd, in a world that values "diversity," that people can sometimes stare at Adam strangely, which shows that he is not valued (or understood as understanding leads to valuing) that much by others. Instead, if they have heard anything about autism, they may stare at him with fascination and label him under their breath. It is with a strong resolve that I choose to ignore those scrutinizing glances, even if I notice it, for Adam's sake. It is with the same resolve that I question society's use of rhetoric so that his value is never undermined.