A Day in the Life

You May be Done with the Past, but is the Past Done with You?

2012-01-27T23:28:00.000-08:00

"For the majority of us, the past is regret, the future an experiment"
Mark Twain.
"The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past."

William Faulkner.

Those of us who have experienced mental ill health are often advised not to ruminate too much on the past, or to speculate too much about the future. Rather, we should try to live in the present, which would, it seems, make us happier. However, I would suggest that this is a rather difficult task, and it would appear, that when speaking of mental illness, the problem of feelings of guilt, regret, or even shame at the way one may have behaved when unwell is a quite common one. I, for example, sometimes find myself drenched in bad memories of times when I have been ill, and the resultant feelings of, if not shame, then just downright embarrassment, at my behaviour rise to the fore. Strangely, it is as I get better that this happens, and I seem to find it harder to justify what has gone before with the reassurances that I sometimes give myself- namely, that I was very unwell then. My mindset now seems to be entirely different, and trying to understand past behaviour can be like unravelling some enigmatic riddle. It appears to me that I was a very different person then, and maybe it is as the novelist L.P. Hartley suggested, that "the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."

I got to thinking about all this because, as I listened to our local radio station the other morning, there was a phone-in debate about the rehabilitation of offenders, which was broadened out into the question of redemption, and whether it is possible. Many, it would seem, are of the view that leopards don't change their spots, or as the character Ida Arnold put it in Graham Greene's "Brighton Rock": "People don't change. They're like Brighton Rock. The same all the way through." But, having changed a great deal myself, I do believe in the capacity for change and the possibility of redemption. If I did hurt or offend people during periods of ill health, then I can only say that I suffered too, and that through that experience, I hope that I've become a more understanding and compassionate person.

For those who know me well, they would know that this is the case. My parents, for example, who stood by me throughout my experiences, would probably tell anyone that I was a decent, nice human being. But what of the mass we sometimes refer to as "other people". If the phone-in I listened to is anything to go by, then they have little time for those whose behaviour may have been odd or a little wayward. And so it is that it is these people I tend to worry about. This is what, perhaps, is in the back of my mind if I'm asked to disclose my diagnosis in a public way- that my past will somehow re-emerge, and far from helping to dismantle stigma, will somehow reaffirm it. You could say, no doubt, that I sometimes worry too much about this, but I do think that in these harsh times there has been a hardening of opinion towards people like myself who, through no fault of their own, have become ill or dependent in some way. I always have a slight dread, then, of my past, as it were, coming out to play, restricting my opportunities and scuppering my chances.
It is clear that such feelings are not exclusive to those with experience of mental ill health, though. It would seem that for many of us, as Mark Twain stated, "the past is regret". Indeed, one might go further and say, as William Faulkner did, that "the past is not dead. In fact it's not even past." For in our minds our memories can replay the past and bring it into our present, perhaps even letting it shape our futures. We can, of course, say that we're done with the past. Slough it off. Cut it loose. But, although we may try to do this, there is always that nagging feeling, in me at least, that though you may be done with the past, the past may not yet be done with you.

A Road to Nowhere?

2012-01-21T23:54:00.000-08:00

"All in all, then, the future of mental health treatment looks promising. We are no longer, it seems, and in the words of the great Talking Heads song, on a 'road to nowhere'. We are, most reassuringly, finally on the road to recovery."

From my own blog post, "The Road to Recovery".

In general, I try to keep this blog as upbeat and positive as I can, and the above quote, I think, shows this. I have now done 69 postings since that particular one, this being the 70th, and I now, I am sad to say, sometimes feel that the Pathways Group, our little gathering for those with experience of psychosis, may have reached a point, for me at least, where it has outlived some of its usefulness.

I say "some" because I still greatly enjoy the social aspect of our group, and I still think it is a great resource for those in the process of recovery, and a wonderful way of increasing people's confidence and widening their social network. In the group, we focus on people's strengths and interests, not their shortcomings, and attempt to build on those. It is, then, a most brilliant resource for those who are at a certain stage in their recovery. They meet others in the same predicament, get to go out and mingle in social situations, learn about their own problems and illnesses, and generally have a good time. And for me, it was invaluable in the process of my recovery, involving me in things which, had I not joined the group, I would probably never have had the opportunity to do.

Having said all that, it seems now to me that, having moved on significantly, and feeling better than I perhaps have ever done since the inception of my illness, the group caters mainly to those who are, without wishing to sound patronising, only so far on on their road to a better and more fulfilling life. For those, like myself, who wish to move beyond the boundaries of the group, I think that it may lack in certain areas, not really helping in moving us further forward. Despite this, we have had sessions which have signposted us towards other places which may offer help in, for example, finding a job. But, I think it would be good if the group itself could help us in this regard, perhaps offering referrals to other organisations when we feel the time is right, instead of leaving such things all down to the service user themselves.

Moreover, with the government's current impetus to get those on disability benefits back into work, this might relieve the anxiety of some who may find themselves, having been unwell for a significant amount of time, pushed rudely into a situation in which they feel out of their depth. Ironically, as the government does this, unemployment, even amongst the well majority, continues to rise, with some forecasting an increase which would put the figures near to the 3 million mark. And, further to this, with the cuts being made in the public sector, many mental health staff are themselves facing radical changes in their workplace and a more uncertain future. So, in the end, my own modest ideas may just be beyond what is able to be achieved at present.

So, recovery is great. Recovery, no doubt, is a good thing. But, I think one might ask, and perhaps members of staff might ask themselves, and those in government may well ask themselves, recovery to what end? Do we recover just to remain jobless and economically unproductive? Do we recover only to be in a situation of apparent stasis? I think these are questions which need to be asked for the well being of all of us in this situation, and to ensure that the road to recovery continues, and doesn't end up being a road to nowhere.

Stigma- Are Things Improving?

2012-01-14T01:18:00.000-08:00

I have often said in this blog that I feel the problem of stigma is gradually improving. In my experience, I have rarely had problems with the general public or neighbours, for example. I do not, however, go around with my diagnosis tattooed on my forehead, so to speak. So, while I behave like an ordinary human being, I suppose the problem of other people's knowledge (or lack thereof), attitudes and behaviour would not come up unless I told them of my illness. This can be a problem in itself, though, as judging who and when to tell can open up a minefield of possibilities. Would I be rejected? Would people have a different opinion of me, if they knew? I suppose only in being completely open and public about my illness could I be sure about such issues.
Anyway, the national "Time to Change" campaign, set up to tackle the problem of stigma around mental ill health, has published figures which would seem to indicate that I am correct in thinking that this problem is on the wane. They report a 4% reduction in actual discrimination experienced by those with mental illness. The figures are based on a survey carried out on 1000 people who are currently being treated for a defined mental illness and who are living in the community. The reduction was evidenced in the survey carried out in 2010, and remained consistent in 2011.
The problem of public attitudes towards, and knowledge about, mental ill health, however, seems to be a trickier issue. "Time to Change", while still reporting a 0.8% improvement in public attitudes in 2011, also states that this figure represents a drop in improvement from the previous period of 2008 to 2010, when a 2.2% improvement was seen. They state that this is consistent with international research which suggests that attitudes towards "vulnerable" groups can harden during periods of recession and unemployment. The project, then, which has received millions of pounds in funding, would appear to want us to concentrate on the reduction in discrimination, their comments on this on their website reading as follows: "The crucial thing is that the reduction in actual experiences of discrimination has been sustained."
However, I would suggest that it is often problems of knowledge and attitudes that lead to actual instances of discrimination. Don't such things, as it were, all begin in the mind? If we can't change people's attitudes, how can we change their behaviour?
Furthermore, it would appear, from looking over some other articles on the internet, that purely educational campaigns to reduce stigma are not all that successful. It has been said that TTC's own "1 in 4" message actually had little effect in changing people's attitudes towards those with experience of mental illness. More effective, it seems, is actually knowing someone who has had or has a mental illness, or meeting someone who is open about it. Admittedly, then, "Time to Change" say that their "key principle" is built on "social contact", and indeed they have created a number of events where there are, as it states on their website, "opportunities for members of the public to come into contact with people who are open about their mental health problems." They also claim that there is a clear and consistent link between their own campaign and "improved knowledge, attitudes and behaviour around mental health."
So, anti-stigma campaigning in itself can be problematic, as one is never entirely sure of the effect, or lack of effect, one is having. This is something we are only too familiar with at the Media Action Group for Mental Health. And our own, perhaps more subtle, approach to changing attitudes, may or may not be working in our local community. Overall, then, it may be fair to say that unless you have experience of, have met, or know someone with, mental illness, the chances of you even being concerned with such issues is slim. It may be that, as with many other things, we are not really bothered about them until they land on our own doorstep.
I would just say though, that if you do fancy bettering your knowledge around, or changing your attitude towards, mental ill health, why not read this blog?

To Whom Do You Beautifully Belong?

2012-01-08T13:12:00.000-08:00

I have just finished reading Alan Hollinghurst's "The Line of Beauty", a novel about the ruthless and decadent '80s. One segment of the novel is entitled, "To Whom Do You Beautifully Belong?", after a phrase taken form another novel by the American master, Henry James. The book is, on one level, about purely aesthetic beauty as it is contrasted with moral vulgarity, the main character of the book, Nick Guest, being in thrall to all things purely beautiful. Indeed, the title of the novel is taken from a phrase coined by Hogarth to describe the "ogee", which to him was the ultimate "line of beauty".
So, all this got me thinking about the purely beautiful, particularly in terms of writing or language, and the question, "to whom do you beautifully belong?", has been running through my mind ever since, striking me, as it did, as particularly gorgeous.
I remember when I was very young that I was always taken by poetry or prose that had a particular ring to it. Perhaps too young to understand fully exactly what was being said, I took great pleasure nonetheless in the sheer aesthetic beauty of a certain sentence or phrase.
Some have said that the phrase, "cellar door", is the most beautiful in the English language in terms of phonaesthetics (sound) as opposed to semantics (meaning). But, it is perhaps the marriage of sound and meaning which produces a truly great sentence or phrase. Tom Stoppard, I believe, said that Shakespeare was the ultimate exemplar of this marriage, where form and content are interwoven and seem to enhance each other.
However, being something of an admirer of the purely aesthetic form of beauty, I thought I would just print here a few of the lines or extracts that have wowed me in the past. I'm sure you can all think of some of your own favourite extracts or sentences, but just for you, here are a few of mine:
"...tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further...And one fine morning-
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Great Gatsby".
"LOLITA, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta."
Vladimir Nabokov, "Lolita".
"But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts, and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs."
George Eliot, "Middlemarch".
"By and by all trace is gone, and what is forgotten is not only the footprints but the water too and what is down there. The rest is weather. Not the breath of the disremembered and unaccounted for, but wind in the eaves, or spring ice thawing too quickly. Just weather. Certainly no clamor for a kiss."
Toni Morrison, "Beloved".
"From 30 feet away she looked like a lot of class. From 10 feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from 30 feet away."
Raymond Chandler, "The High Window".
So, there are just five of my favourites. I have restricted myself to just prose, as to delve into poetry also would probably provide so many examples that I'd be here all day. I wonder, then, what your favourite, most aesthetically beautiful, lines, sentences or extracts are, and to whom do they beautifully belong?

Resolving to Make No Resolutions.

2012-01-03T21:46:00.000-08:00

So, it is now 2012, and I wish all who may read this a very happy and wonderful New Year. It is around this time that most of us make some kind of resolution about how we are going to change our behaviour. But, psychologically speaking, if what I've gleaned from a quick scroll over the internet is true, such efforts to shift our lifestyles may be doomed to failure. By giving ourselves goals which are sometimes unrealistic we condemn ourselves to disappointment.
Indeed, the whole issue of goal setting is, psychologically, a complex one. People have written whole, very weighty, books on the subject. But, to grind it down to just one or two principles, it seems that when setting ourselves some form of goal it should, first and foremost, be achievable and realistic. So, as we are often advised by mental health services, instead of trying to achieve your resolution in one giant leap, try to break it down into smaller, more realistic, aims. For example, if you want, as I do, to learn something new (a new language, perhaps) just start by setting yourself the goal of maybe looking on the internet for available courses in your area. This way, by breaking your goal down first into a smaller, achievable, constituent part, you will probably have more success. The achievement of this first goal should then lead you on to a second realistic aim, and so on and so on.
It is also advisable to perhaps set yourself a time limit for the achievement of your goal. So, having first broken your resolution down into smaller, realistic aims, you could give yourself, say, two weeks to get this first aim done. This way you can chart your progress and see a real advancement towards your ultimate goal.
This is advice we often get from mental health services, and which may prove useful to some who want to change their behaviour in some way or try something new. Many of us, though, are not that great at goal setting and actually achieving resolutions, and so, this year, my resolution may be to make no resolutions at all. Indeed, many of us, fed up by not achieving our goals, may end up like the chap in the painting by Philip Guston below, lying down, smoking and surrounded by the food we said we were going to eat less of.

"Painting, Smoking, Eating", by Philip Guston. (1973).

So, as a new year dawns, I wish all of you the very best of luck in actually achieving your resolutions. As for me, I will, as I say, perhaps resolve to make no resolutions. I'm going to let life just wash over me, I think, and suck up as much as I can on the way, or, in the words of the old song, que sera, sera, whatever will be will be.

Do They Know it's Christmas?

2011-12-16T01:29:00.000-08:00

Around this time of year, I usually print a little Christmas message to everyone who may read or comment on this blog. It usually goes something like this: hasn't Christmas just become an exercise in wanton materialism? And, for many, especially those experiencing mental ill health, it can be one of the most isolating and lonely times of year.
As I have repeated this message now for going on four years, I thought I would change it slightly by printing a little picture of where I live, as we have just had our first Christmas snowfall. I do this in the hope that it will inspire all of us to feel a little yuletide cheer, and divert our minds from some of our current woes. So, here it is.

OK, so it's not all that impressive. But you can see just a little sprinkling of snow on the pavement and on the roof of my neighbour's house. Apart from that everything looks a little soggy and grey. My mission to inspire some heartfelt Christmas bonhomie may, then, have fallen flat on its face.
However, such is the weather in beautiful, old England, that we still seem to be getting a bit of sunshine, and for me, that sometimes means more brilliant sunsets. So, as we consider Christmas, our economic meltdown, higher bills and an increased cost of living, we can at least look forward to scenes such as the one below.

I think you'll agree that, even in Stoke-on-Trent, the unfettered beauty of nature abounds.
So, I'd just like to wish all of you, especially those who regularly comment on this blog (bazza, Dixie, Gary and the Manic Chef) a very merry Christmas. And, just so as not to disappoint, I hope we can all spare a thought for those who are unwell or in some other unfortunate situation at this most at once celebratory and alienating time of year. Indeed, you could well ask, in the words of the famous Christmas song, "do they know it's Christmas at all?"

A New Book?

2011-12-09T23:49:00.001-08:00

I have sometimes written in this blog (somewhat boastfully, perhaps) of how I managed to get a book of my poetry published in 2004. The book in question, though, sold very few copies (an embarrassingly low amount, if truth be told) and now the publishers have gone into liquidation, so the book, as far as I know, will, in the very near future, no longer be available for public consumption. And, the reason I haven't publicised my book more in this blog (by letting you know its title, for example) is that I have always felt an excruciating blend of pride and embarrassment at what I have written. While I am quite pleased with some of the book, there are parts of it which I now find particularly dark, and which perhaps reflect my mindset at that time. Written on the cusp of a psychotic episode, it deals with subjects and contains vocabulary which I can only say that many would find off-putting. So, I am often loath to have those I know read it, feeling that they may wonder what on earth was possessing me. But, as I say, soon I will no longer have to worry about such things.
Having said all that, I don't think it is the function of literature to supply us with cosy affirmations of our lives and what we might already think. As it is with art, perhaps literature should, as I said in the introductory biography in my book, sometimes "provoke and offend". I'm sure you can think of many examples of this, but two spring immediately to my mind. Baudelaire's collection of poetry, "Les Fleurs du Mal" ("The Flowers of Evil") dealt with subjects such as decadence and eroticism and became the subject of a trial in which the author and publisher were fined for insulting public decency. Later, of course, there was the infamous British trial regarding D.H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover", in which the publishers of the novel, Penguin, were tried under the 1959 Obscene Publications Act. In this instance, though, despite the novel's use of a certain "flowery" vocabulary and the fact that it had explicit sexual content, the verdict in the trial was not guilty due to the fact that the novel was said to have a certain artistic merit. Both these works are now considered classics. So, is it the case that any subject or content should not be considered unsuitable or inappropriate when it comes to art? And, I suppose, this would lead us into the question of the rights and wrongs of censorship, one which I do not wish to delve into here.
Anyway, all this leads me up to the point that, having once been through the process of having my writing published, and finding it a not altogether comfortable experience, I may be about to do it again. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I have just been offered a contract to have more of my poems published. Again the poems were written a while back, but I think, this time, they are a little less controversial in their tone and content. Also, if truth be told, the publisher who has offered me this contract is one which specialises in work written by those with experience of mental ill health. So, it seems to me that the object of publishing my work this time may have less to do with its literary merit than it does with being an advocate for mental health related issues, something with which I am already familiar.
As I launch myself once more into the public sphere, then, I hope that this time I can feel more at home with what I am doing. The purpose this time seems clear: to show that those with even the most severe mental health diagnosis can and do function and contribute to our society. And in this, I'll surely feel that I am doing something worthwhile.

Life Begins at the Big 4 and 0.

2011-11-30T00:27:00.001-08:00

I turn 40 in a few days' time, on December 5th, to be precise, and, I have to say, somewhat surprisingly, that I am looking forward to becoming officially middle aged. You could say that even reaching this age for me is an achievement and, indeed, getting here has often proved to be a long and difficult road. My experience of mental illness has meant that I've had to forgo many of the things that many would consider constitute a "normal" existence. Opportunities of work, marriage and children, I think, have all been reduced due to my painful, somewhat arrested, development. And, in a post entitled "Birthday Blues", which I wrote three years ago, I complained of the consequences of my illness, and made the following assessment: "...as I sit in my comfy chair, is it really so comfortable? What, as I approach the dreaded 40, do I have to look forward to? More free time? More getting bored? More impecuniousness, penury and poverty with no holidays because supposedly my whole life has become one of leisure? Watching more crap DVD's, even crapper television?
Well, all I can say is that now my feelings about my birthday are a far cry from how I felt when I was younger. As I slowly encroach towards my 37th, my own mortality finally bearing down on me, my own sense of lack of achievement growing, my feelings of the pointlessness of existence exacerbated, I really can't get all that excited."
However, with only three years between now and then, I am very glad to report that things have changed. I seem to have reached a time in my life where I can finally say that I am, despite it all, contented. Although I lack many of the material things which are supposed to make us all so happy, I think, without sounding almost too corny for words, that I have grown both spiritually and emotionally during this time. Whereas once I felt a great emotional absence in my life, I feel that this has now been filled with many new friends and experiences. The Pathways Group and my voluntary work have been invaluable in helping me achieve this new sense of fulfilment, and I am, now, more than ever before, appreciative of the people I have come to know. Because I once seemed to have it all and then lost it, I now have the knowledge and understanding that the people in my life are the most important thing. They will always come first. And I would just say to the people who have been instrumental in my recovery, a great, big, appreciative thank you. I would give particular mention to my closest mates, Mark, Helen and Gary. Admittedly, they are all very different people, but each is wonderful in their own way, and without them, my life would be not only decidedly duller, but also a lot more difficult. I should also mention my parents, who, at the grand old ages of 76 and 80 respectively, never cease to give their loving support. Even during the darkest times, they never gave up on me. And, even though I sometimes have a bit of a go at mental health services, I do appreciate the many professionals who do a great job in looking after people unfortunate enough to find themselves unwell. Perhaps the most important thing that I've learnt is that the old saying that you reap what you sow is decidedly true, and as I have given, or been able to give, more to others, the rewards have been immeasurable.
But, also, I now have the sense that I am a stronger, wiser and more capable person than I was before my illness. Whereas once it seemed I almost defined myself by what others might think or say about me, I now know that, whatever is said or done, that I am OK. Yes, I have finally decided that I am a decent, nice sort, and I don't think that I would ever allow myself to be dragged down in the way that I was previously.
So, for me, life may well begin, or at least, be beginning again, at the big 4 and 0. You could say that, really, I'm a bloody lucky man. You could say, after all this time, that I'm happy.

Why I Didn't Wear a Poppy This Year.

2011-11-16T05:42:00.001-08:00

"They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn,

At the going down of the sun, and in the morning,

We will remember them."

From "For the Fallen", a poem by Laurence Binyon, a.k.a. the "Ode of Remembrance".

On November 11th, 2011, at 11 am, silence fell over all Britain as people remembered those who had given their lives in service of their country. I was one of those who maintained this respectful silence. However, as I did this, I was not filled with pride at the thought of the many who have fought, died or been injured in war. Rather, I thought of what a terrible and tragic waste of life war always brings. And so, as I stood there, I was not wearing a poppy, as, although the poppy is an internationally recognized symbol of remembrance, I feel it also, of late, has been used to glorify that which I find resolutely inglorious.
I suppose me and my family have always had a strange relationship with the poppy and its symbolism. My great grandfather, Jesse Sheldon, died after serving in World War I, and his widow, Louisa, was left to bring up six children alone in direst poverty. From the day my great grandfather died, Louisa refused to buy a poppy because in the centre was written the inscription, "Earl Haig Fund". My great grandmother blamed Haig for Jesse's fate, and after receiving no pension money from the army at all, she strictly forbade all her children from buying the symbol of remembrance. Even down to my own mother, this command remained, and one of my cousins, who was a lecturer in history at Birmingham University, wrote of how he also felt the "granite immovability" of this edict.
However, it is not for this reason that I did not wear a poppy this year. More and more, I find that there is a lot of propaganda and jingoism surrounding our current involvements abroad. So much so, in fact, that you could almost sense in the air that not to buy a poppy was some sort of act of sedition. Indeed, when a war correspondent for the "Independent" newspaper came on to our local radio station and gave his own, very valid, reasons for not wearing the poppy, he was called "an idiot" by another caller. Ironically, she said that people had died defending our right to freedom of speech and as such should be afforded this token of respect, only to, as I have said, roundly admonish the war correspondent for having a different point of view than hers. So, as we go far afield to supposedly defend the rights and freedoms of others, it seems that our own right to freedom of expression, at least in this case, while not exactly not allowed, is perhaps undermined by a dominant feeling that those who do not support our efforts are not patriotic enough.
Indeed, the poppy has perhaps always been bound up with an element of propaganda. The poem "In Flanders Fields", by Canadian military doctor and artillery commander Major John Mcrae, and written in 1915, is said to have inspired the use of the poppy as a symbol of remembrance. The red poppy flowered on the battlefields of Belgium, France and Gallipoli in the spring of 1915, and in its first lines the poem mentions the flower, stating, "In Flanders fields the poppies blow". The poem, however, goes on to have a somewhat sabre-rattling conclusion, stating that "the dead" are somehow imploring those left to "take up our quarrel with the foe". The inspiration, then, for the wearing of the poppy, was, from the first, bound up with ideas of the glorification of battle.
In actual fact the First World War saw some of the most wanton and needless destruction of life ever witnessed, with many blaming the incompetence of the generals, and the phrase "lions led by donkeys" came to be synonymous with the war. Such tragic waste of life led Wilfred Owen, the poet who fought and died in the war, to declare that the thought that it is good or honourable to die for one's country (or as he put it, in Latin, dulce et decorum est pro patria mori) was actually an "old lie".
Despite this, still, today, we appear to view giving up one's life for one's country as heroic, rather than tragic. However, one of the most famous of all Englishmen, Samuel Johnson, quoted in the "Life of Samuel Johnson" by James Boswell, stated that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", a statement qualified by Boswell by him saying that Johnson did not mean "a real and generous love of our country, but that pretend patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self-interest." So, to my mind, with the exception of World War II, I don't think that there has ever really been a cause actually worth fighting and dying for. It is self-interest which mostly governs the actions of governments during war, and, as American author and essayist Edward Abbey suggested, a true "patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." And here I come to our latest wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What sealed my opinion about these involvements abroad, particularly in terms of Iraq, was when I read the first few pages of David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism". It seems that when all other justifications for the pre-emptive war in Iraq failed, the "freedom" of that country became, as Harvey states, "in and of itself adequate justification for the war". But, Harvey asks, just what sort of freedom are we conferring, by force of arms, upon the Iraqi people?
On 19th September, 2003, Paul Bremer, the head of Coalition Provisional Authority, announced, to quote Harvey, "the full privatisation of public enterprises, full ownership rights by foreign firms of Iraq businesses, full repatriation of foreign profits...the opening of Iraq's banks to foreign control, national treatment for foreign companies and...the elimination of nearly all trade barriers." Such orders were "applied to all areas of Iraq's economy, including public services, the media, manufacturing, services, transportation, finance and construction", with only oil remaining exempt, because, Harvey suggests, of its being a revenue producer to pay for the war and its geopolitical significance. Meanwhile, the labour market was, on the other hand, strictly regulated, with strikes being forbidden in key sectors and the right to unionize restricted. A regressive "flat tax" was also imposed.
Some said that these orders were against the Geneva and Hague conventions, since an occupying power is obliged to guard the assets of an occupied country and not sell them off. However, the U.S. managed to circumvent this inconvenient law by appointing a "sovereign" interim government, thereby making the orders "legal".
The hope of all this was that by guaranteeing the freedom of the markets, somehow individual freedoms would grow. Wealth should increase and improve well-being. The only trouble is, as Harvey points out, this particular sort of "freedom" tends to favour "the interests of private property owners, business, multinational corporations and financial capital". How does this, then, actually secure the "freedoms" of average Iraqis? Indeed, a friend of mine who studied history and has two degrees in the subject, remarked that the war was, in fact, an act of "looting". And, we are often told back home that soldiers are dying in order to protect our own "freedom". But, I think, in the light of such facts, we should always ask what sort of "freedom" is meant, and whose interests does it really serve? Could it be that our own fervent patriotism of today is really just a front which hides "a cloak of self-interest"?
So, as silence fell over Britain, I, as I say, did indeed "remember them". I remembered all of those who appear to have died or been maimed needlessly. I remembered the sacrifice of those in my own family who served. And, I remembered the hypocrisy of the politicians, some of whom had sent our servicemen and women to fight, and who, on Remembrance Sunday, stood with arrogant pomp as the last post was played. And, unlike them, I was not wearing a poppy.

Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.

2011-11-14T19:13:00.001-08:00

The above words are spoken by the character of Polonius in Shakespeare's play, "Hamlet", and refer to the main protagonist's state of mind, which, although seemingly unbalanced, appears to contain elements of reason. Thus there are doubts expressed throughout the play as to whether the most famous melancholic of them all, Hamlet, is truly mad or simply, as he says himself, putting on an "antic disposition". If Hamlet's madness is genuine, though, it is interesting that it is suffused with apparent significance, which got me wondering whether one can actually find a meaning in madness, particularly in terms of psychotic illness; whether one can, as Karl Jaspers, the German psychiatrist and philosopher, put it, render understandable that which, by definition, is "un-understandable".
I suppose that the stereotypical image of the "mad man" is one of someone who babbles incoherently. He is mad precisely because he doesn't make any sense. Indeed, if I remember correctly I think that Freud made some sort of comment suggesting that understanding someone in the throes of psychosis was like trying to decipher hieroglyphics- it was a "language", as it were, which the sane could not understand.
However, in his book, "The Divided Self", R.D. Laing set out to demonstrate meaning in psychosis. With his concept of "ontological uncertainty" and the elaboration of this with his "false self/real self" system, Laing suggested that it was an indefinable feeling of something lacking and a primary disturbance of the self which was the root of schizoid and schizophrenic disorders. He postulated that those who have their "real self" undermined throughout childhood develop a "false self" to interact with the world. When under pressure, the real self shrinks and dies and the false self can no longer cope, leading to the development of psychosis.

Radical psychiatrist R.D. Laing.

In one of the most famous cases, that of Mary Barnes, the potential of Laing's radical psychiatry was shown.

Barnes stayed at the London experimental community of Kingsley Hall, founded by Laing and the Philadelphia Association in the 1960s. During her stay, having developed psychotic symptoms previously, she regressed to infantile behaviour, often wetting and soiling herself and having uninhibited outbursts of rage and fear. Her psychiatrist there, Joseph Berke, responded by seemingly acquiescing to this behaviour, treating her like a child. When she began to paint her faeces on walls and on her own body, Berke gave her paper and crayons as an alternative means of expressing herself. What resulted was quite amazing, with Barnes eventually growing out of her regressive state to become an internationally recognised artist.
Her art was deeply influenced by her Catholicism, and one of her favourite images was that of the crucifixion, showing not only the agony of the cross, but also the joy of resurrection, perhaps reflecting her own experience. Of her paintings, Berke remarked that they "came screaming out of her psyche".

Artist Mary Barnes, surrounded by her paintings.

So, both Laing's theories and Barnes' art would appear to suggest that meaning can be found in even the most serious of mental health conditions. Indeed, in later years, there has been the suggestion that to create a narrative of one's experiences can be useful for service users in understanding and perhaps imposing some sense on that which, at first, may appear unintelligible. Radical psychologist Rufus May even suggests that, once diagnosed as having psychotic experiences, one enters a "taboo identity", and so a "sense of loss of one's normality" follows, which might require one to "mourn the loss of a former identity and reassess one's expectations and values".

For me, seeing my own experience as the result of some form of emotional trauma has helped give meaning to it, and I can also relate to Laing's theories regarding psychosis. Also, I can say that this blog is, perhaps, my attempt at giving meaning to my experiences and creating an understandable narrative of them. It has, then, been a great aid in helping me make sense of that which seems unintelligible, and I would thank all those who have commented and followed me on that journey. Together, it seems, we have put the method into the madness.

The Mysterious Case of Lars von Trier.

2011-11-10T13:00:00.001-08:00

As one of my major interests is film, and as the major subject of this blog is mental health, I thought I would try to bring the two together with a little biographical story about the Danish film director and screen writer Lars von Trier.
Von Trier started out as a prodigious talent, directing his first film at the age of eleven after receiving a Super-8 camera as a gift, and continued to be involved in independent movie making throughout his high school years. But, perhaps, cinema was an emotional outlet for the young auteur, being raised in a way which has been described as having "complex results for his personality and development". Indeed, while his mother considered herself a communist, his father was a social democrat, and both were committed nudists who regarded the disciplining of children reactionary. They are said to have not allowed much room in their household for "feelings, religion, or enjoyment" and refused to set any clear boundaries for their children. And, Lars did not realise, until 1989, after a death-bed confession from his mother, that, in fact, his real biological father was Ulf Trier, and that he had been conceived as the result of an affair.
Such complexity, though, seemed only to serve von Trier's latent talent, and he went on to win great acclaim, receiving the Palm D'or, the Grand Prix, and the Prix du Jury at the Cannes film festival for various films. The filmic movement with which he is most associated is Dogme 95, which he co-founded with fellow director Thomas Vinterberg. The movement provided a sort of manifesto, which eschewed big budget Hollywood production values in favour of hand held cameras, grainy photography and naturalistic lighting.
I have long been an admirer of von Trier's films. I thought that "The Idiots", despite its very explicit sexual content, was a great film, and I also admired "Dancer in the Dark", starring the Icelandic singer Bjork, which brought von Trier the Palm D'or at Cannes.
However, some, it seemed, had already noticed a "disturbing" streak in von Trier's films, notably in their treatment of women. The critic Mark Kermode, for example, found von Trier's 1996 film, "Breaking the Waves", which won the Grand Prix at Cannes, to be, if I remember correctly, "really pernicious, misogynistic stuff". He even appeared to compare it unfavourably with the infamous, and once banned, film, "I Spit on Your Grave".
Von Trier, however, is no stranger to controversy and is, perhaps, well known for the sexually explicit nature of some of his films. In 1998, he made history by having his company, Zentropa, be the first mainstream film company to produce hardcore pornographic films. The films were made, though, specifically with a female audience in mind. They were extremely popular in Europe, and even led "Cosmopolitan" magazine to suggest that one of the films, "Pink Prison", was the "role model for the new porn generation".
So, it seemed that, far from being a misogynist, von Trier was actually attuned somewhat to the female psyche, making films of an explicit nature which actually appealed to a female, and not just a male, audience.
But, then came the stories that von Trier suffered from depression. Then came the film that appeared to put an end to any suggestion that he was some kind of liberator. The film was called "Antichrist", and von Trier said that it grew out of his experience of depression. Again, the film was explicit in its content, and one of its stars, Charlotte Gainsbourg, received the best actress award at Cannes. I have seen the film myself, and indeed, I think I am with Kermode on this one; that the film displays a somewhat unnerving misogyny. Indeed, one member of the Ecumenical Jury at Cannes described it as "the most misogynistic movie from the self-proclaimed biggest director in the world". So, one wonders, why the sudden change from apparent emancipator to misogynist? Had depression clouded von Trier's vision?
With his next film, entitled "Melancholia", and described as a psychological disaster drama, the answer seemed clear. And von Trier is now said to be working on a new film, entitled, "The Nymphomaniac", about the sexual awakening of a woman (can't wait for that one!). Furthermore, on 19th May 2011, the once darling of Cannes was declared persona non grata by the board of directors for comments he made during a press conference for his film, "Melancholia", the day before. Apparently, von Trier claimed to have some sympathy and understanding for Adolf Hitler and then, jokingly, and I must emphasise, jokingly, claimed to be a Nazi himself, comments for which he later apologised and tried to give an explanation. This debacle led him to announce that he would no longer issue any public statements or interviews.
What to make of all this? Is it the case that von Trier is a social iconoclast- a great man on the verge of greatness? Or is it that mental illness has driven him to areas which, previously, he would not have thought fit to walk in? Is it perhaps the age old question of difference and talent and how we, as a society, view it? Is this man a visionary, or is he, simply, not well? All I know is that the mysterious case of Lars von Trier, and the controversy surrounding it, raises as many questions about our own social milieu as it does about him.

Forty Miles of Bad Road.

2011-11-06T23:18:00.000-08:00

Quite recently, me and a friend from the Pathways Group were invited to an informal lunch at the Bennett Centre, our local mental health resource unit. We were invited in order to give a service user perspective on our local mental health services. Amongst the members of staff who attended, there were also two representatives from the West Midlands Quality Review Service.
At the meeting, the provision of "crisis" care was discussed and, upon my friend saying that I had something of a story to tell, I was invited to say what had happened in terms of my own care.
Unfortunately, I was unable to give a glowing review of my local mental health services. I say unfortunately, because now, having made such a good recovery, I get on well with many members of staff and have a new-found understanding and respect for what they do. It is indeed unfortunate, then, that, in the past, I was on the receiving end of what my then psychiatrist even called, "bad practice".
I am hence in something of a precarious position, finding myself wanting to support my local mental health team in their efforts, particularly in the light of the current economic situation, but finding that often, because I feel I was somewhat let down by them in the past, that I am unable to fully endorse their methods. Indeed, many of the earlier posts on this blog I think reflect some of my previous indignation at my treatment and my consequent questioning of the whole nature of psychiatric services.
The meeting which we attended, then, turned out to be a case in point, and while I did not give all the details of my own experience, it was enough to make one of the representatives from the Review Service say that it was "a great story", but one which, possibly, should be used as a cautionary tale, in order to prevent such things happening to any one else.
I have written before of what happened to me in these pages (see my blog, "This Time, it's Personal", 2008), so I will not go into the full details here. Suffice it to say, that you could sum up my past experience of mental health services with the title of the old Duane Eddy song, "Forty Miles of Bad Road". Indeed, as I reflected upon these past happenings the other day, I remembered that, at the time, they sort of shook my very idea of right and wrong; of personal morality. I could not quite believe that, at some points, it was myself who seemed to be being held entirely responsible for the situation I was in. OK, I abused alcohol, but I also had a pretty serious underlying mental health problem, which mental health services seemed, at a certain time, to singularly fail to deal with. Indeed, I was told at one point by my psychiatrist that some members of staff had remarked that I was "not their problem", or that it was "not their job" to deal with me, seeing me, as they did then, as just a drunkard.
I can say that this attitude still perplexes me to this day, and I have also spoken about the problems of so-called "dual diagnosis" before. Even one of the representatives from the Review Service remarked that to give up drinking often requires, to use his words, that you are in "the right head-space". Why was this not understood at the time? With my mental ill health driving my alcohol abuse, and my alcohol abuse exacerbating my mental ill health, what was I to do? I did get a referral to our local alcohol and drugs unit, but, as ever when I stayed in such places, I just seemed to become more anxious. It was only, as I told them at the meeting, when I stayed at The Priory in Altrincham, that the turning-point came about. There, I was afforded something which appeared to me to be sadly lacking in my local mental health services: respect for me as a human being. I was given a little space, and it was finally acknowledged that the real problem was my mental health. I was detoxed, diagnosed and medicated within two weeks, and I would have stayed on longer had it not been for the enormous financial cost to my parents. But, more importantly to me, while I was being treated as some kind of social pariah by the NHS, at The Priory I was being hugged and suppoted by other patients, and treated more like a "whole" person by members of staff. When I got back to Stoke, though, I went into our local Harplands Hospital and it seemed like a different universe. Again my old anxieties returned. Again I did not want to stay in such a place.
Since then, though, things have only got better. Our local Pathways Group, which has helped me a great deal (along with my voluntary work) continues to go from strength to strength, and is closer to the sort of service which I think is required for those like myself. The intelligence, talent and ability within the group is actively recognised and encouraged, and our collective confidence looks like it's going through the roof. We also have lots of fun!
So, perhaps what is important about all of this is that everyone involved learns something from it. I know that I have, and have managed to successfully move on. What remains with me, though, is the understanding that all of us deserve, however badly we might behave through our mental ill health, to be afforded our human dignity. As one of my previous psychiatrists said to me, you tend to "get treated badly when you are ill". And, as one who has been there, I can attest that at times I probably felt, deep down, that I didn't deserve any better than I was getting. But now, I know that I, that we all, do. And whereas once I sat on a street corner drinking from a can of lager, I now have managed to reach the dizzy heights of sitting on a steering group for the provision of the treatment of psychosis in North Staffordshire. I have also spoken at mental health conferences. I took part in the making of a short film. I have written a book of poetry, as well as articles for a professional mental health journal. I have a degree. I write this blog, and I try to help others with my voluntary work.
To anyone, then, who is perhaps starting out as a student nurse or some such, please remember that every person is a wealth of possibilities. Even those who seem like hopeless cases. Even those who abuse and treat you badly, might turn out to be, when well, some one entirely different. I don't think you can afford to reject the possible rewards of turning some one's forty miles of bad road into a glorious, far-reaching highway.

Schizophrenia- the 100th Anniversary, or, I've Come to Wish You an Unhappy Birthday.

2011-11-02T19:23:00.000-07:00

So, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the introduction of the diagnosis of "schizophrenia". According to that ever-abundant source of information, Wikipedia, the term was actually coined by Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler in 1908. One can only presume, as various mental health charities have marked this year as the 100th anniversary of its usage, that it took a further three years for the term to be used in practice as a diagnostic category. Or is it that Wikipedia have got it wrong. Why, surely that could never be!

Eugen Bleuler, psychiatrist and originator of the term, "schizophrenia".

The stigma, fear and discrimination surrounding the term is well-known, and this, to my mind, is due in no small part to sheer semantic confusion. Derived from the Greek words "schizein" (which actually sounds a bit Germanic to my ear), meaning "to split", and "phren", meaning "mind", "schizophrenia" roughly translates as "splitting of the mind". This definition of the experiences of those diagnosed with the condition (including yours truly) has perhaps led many to associate it with a dual, or "spit", personality, a sort of embodiment of the "Jekyll and Hyde" character type. This, however, was not at all the sort of "splitting" Bleuler was referring to. Rather, he meant the separation of function between personality, thinking, memory and perception.
Anyway, to mark this great occasion, the mental health charity Rethink have launched an independent expert commission on the condition, chaired by Sir Robin Murray, Professor of Psychiatric Research at King's College, London. They have also launched their "wishing schizophrenia an unhappy birthday" campaign, in which people can take part in an on-line petition calling for better treatment for those with the diagnosis which will eventually be sent to the Prime Minister, David Cameron. Rethink seem to say that not much has changed since the term first came into usage. People with the condition are still marginalised, discriminated against, vilified and feared, and to prove it they quote the statistic that those with the condition are said to die twenty years younger than the national average.
Speaking for myself, though, I have to say that I believe things have improved for those of us with this dreaded illness. Mental health services are gradually improving, and even the stigma surrounding the illness, although it is difficult to judge, appears to be waning, rather than getting bigger.
Having said that, debates and problems surrounding the term are many. Experts are divided on whether "schizophrenia" is a useful way to describe the experiences of those so diagnosed. Some want to bin the term completely and replace it with a new one. Stigma remains an issue, whether it be on the wane or not. The efficacy of the long-term use of anti-psychotic drugs is also an ensuing debate. And finally, the big debate over whether schizophrenia is an organic brain condition, or one which should be more associated with societal and environmental factors, rages on.
I, personally, have a long-held dislike of the term, "schizophrenia", if only for the stigma which surrounds it, caused, in no small part, as I have said, by the name itself. But, I'm way past the days of identifying myself solely with that term. Indeed, as time goes on, I feel it has less and less to do with me, although to some I will always be a "diagnosed schizophrenic". Personally, I just prefer to be called by my name, David. I am always disappointed, then, when I hear people say, "Hello, my name is... and I'm a schizophrenic". To have one's identity so bound up with the illness is, to my mind, a great mistake, and a deep disservice to those with the condition. The people I know personally who, like me, have been burdened with this label, are always so much more than that label.
So, to the illness and to the term, I give a big, emphatic V-sign. And, to paraphrase the words of Morrissey and The Smiths, I wish them both a thoroughly unhappy birthday, and if the term should die, I may feel slightly sad, but I won't cry.

The Asylum vs. Care in the Community.

2011-10-27T00:08:00.000-07:00

When I was growing up in Stoke, the reputation of our local psychiatric hospital took on almost mythic qualities. Based in Cheddleton, the St.Edward's hospital was the subject of many, possibly apocryphal, stories, and whenever anyone would act a little "crazy", people would always say "be careful, you'll end up at Cheddleton". The remark was usually delivered in a derisory or humorous fashion, and what it made clear was that those who actually did find themselves "at Cheddleton" were separate from the rest of us. "They" were the insane, while we were, to quote Foucault, shining examples of "a reason sure of itself". So, the element of stigma was clear. The inmates of St.Edward's weren't like us. They were almost a different species, the insane, and I remember thinking very clearly that I would never end up in such a place. Little did I know.

St.Edward's Psychiatric Hospital, Cheddleton.

But what this got me thinking about was the eventual closure of St.Edward's and other places like it, with them eventually being replaced by so-called "care in the community".
The drive for this change began in the '50s and '60s, when there was a rise in patients' rights movements, in turn tied to civil rights campaigns. The stories of many languishing in the long-stay asylums aroused such campaigns, the object of which was to end the isolation of the mentally ill and integrate them back into the community, thereby reducing the stigma attached to such conditions. The 1959 Mental Health Act abolished the distinction between psychiatric and other hospitals and encouraged the development of community care. During the '70s, large-scale psychiatric hospitals were steadily discredited and the setting up of new district general hospitals resulted in a reduction of beds from 150,000 to 80,000 by 1975. The 1983 Mental Health Act set out the rights of those admitted to psychiatric hospitals and allowed them to appeal against committal.
So, so far, so good, one would think. Indeed, attitudes had changed as well. No longer was homosexuality viewed as a matter of mental ill health, and no longer would single women who had fallen pregnant be detained in the old-style Victorian asylums.
However, throughout the '80s and '90s there were a number of high profile cases which led many to question the efficacy of "care in the community". In 1984, social worker Isabel Schwarz was murdered by a former client, which led to a government inquiry into community care. The resulting report, "Community Care: Agenda for Action" was a forerunner to the Community Care Act of 1990, and after a number of similar cases in the '90s, most notably that of Christopher Clunis, who killed Jonathan Zito on the platform of Finsbury Park tube station in 1992, the debate over whether community care was a good idea raged once again. "Forget the patient's rights", the right-wing press seemed to declare, "what about the public's right not to be attacked and killed?" Such was the frenzy of accusation, that the then government proposed controversial changes to mental health law concerning those with severe personality disorder, which would make treatment for them compulsory. Many argued that such changes would infringe patients' civil rights and turn doctors into jailers, and what appeared to have been forgotten was that such cases were really a rarity. The vast majority of murders are committed by "sane" people, but no one ever seems to speak of this violent epidemic spreading amongst the sane.
So, perhaps the question to be asked is did "care in the community" really achieve its aims? Sure, patients' rights have been significantly advanced, but has it had the desired effect of also reducing stigma? Indeed, has it really improved the care of those with experience of mental ill health?
All I can say is that many mental health staff and indeed, also service users, refer to the old long-stay institutions with a certain fondness. St.Edward's itself was set amidst beautiful grounds, and it seemed to be a time when the word "asylum", with its true meaning of sanctuary and protection, was entirely apposite. For many with mental ill health, some time away from everyday life and its problems can be invaluable in their recovery, and I remember one service user stating to me that, contrastingly, "care in the community" really meant "no care in the community".
Speaking for myself, though, I have to say that I wouldn't welcome a return to the old long-stay institutions. The set-backs are simply too many. And if I were around in the '50s, before the impetus for community care came about, who is to say that I wouldn't, with my diagnosis of schizophrenia, be languishing on some grey ward. The problem of stigma, I also have to say, seems to be improving.
In the place of St.Edward's then, we now have the relatively new "Harplands" hospital. But, having made the previous positive comments, I would say that its reputation amongst service users is not that great. One lady, who had experience of depression, even remarked when speaking on our local BBC radio station, that she would rather have committed suicide than go on an acute ward at the Harplands. So it seems that any psychiatric institution will always be feared, and maybe, the old Stoke saying of "be careful, you'll end up at Cheddleton" has merely been replaced by something to the effect of, "be careful, you'll end up at the Harplands".

I'm a Friendly Blogger...Apparently.

2011-10-19T00:30:00.000-07:00

This will be just a short post to say thank you to my very dear friend Gary, aka klahanie, who has seen fit to pass on the "friendly blogger" award to me.
I would just say that I don't think I deserve this award half as much as Gary does. I know he spends hours at his computer communicating back and forth with other bloggers, offering them his kind, warm-hearted friendship. Gary often tells me that he is sometimes "exhausted" by all the communication he so selflessly gives to others, but being the type of guy he is, I don't think he ever fails to respond to some one's comment or email or, if you're like me, telephone call. So here's to you, Gary, my hirsute, hippy pal!
Anyway, as it is expected of me to pass on this award to other bloggers, I thought I would mention just the few who always leave me kind and supportive comments. They are as follows:
The Manic Chef.
bazza at "To Discover Ice".
Dixie at "dcrelief".
Occasionally, I have had comments from others, such as the SNEE (or "The Sometimes Never Eventually Express"), Gem at "The Modern Day Spinster", and "TheraScribbles", so I thought I would mention them too.
And finally, I will give a special mention to Mattie Elliott at "Mattie's Just for Fun Poetry Blog", who left many kind comments on my blog, but who now, unfortunately, appears to have ceased blogging.
You can find links to all the above sites on the right of this page.
Just to say that all of the above mentioned do not have to acknowledge their award, and whether to take part is entirely up to them.
So, this is your "friendly", normal, average, delusional and paranoid man, signing off.

The Sheltering Sky.

2011-10-17T00:07:00.000-07:00

For those of you who live outside the UK, you won't know that quite recently we experienced something of an Indian Summer. Indeed, on Saturday October 1st, temperatures reached an astounding (well, for us anyway) 30 degrees centigrade. That's the hottest temperature for that time of year ever recorded in Britain.
So, as the weather was so nice, I got out my camera, went outside, and took some photos of what I saw. There is, perhaps, nothing more cliched than a picture of a sunset, but we were having such remarkable ones at around that time, that I thought it would be nice to capture them for posterity. The following are actually pictures of the sky around where I live at dawn. I think you will agree that they are quite beautiful, with their astonishing amalgams of pinks, yellows and blues.

I don't know why it is, but I've always been fascinated by the sky- that little bit of atmosphere that protects us from the dark chill of space. So, as I mentioned sunsets earlier, here is one from round my way.

So, as the sky darkened after a wonderful, sunny day, I felt calm and tranquil, safe and protected, beneath the sheltering sky.

By the Age of 40, Everyone has the Face they Deserve.

2011-10-09T15:15:00.000-07:00

The above title is taken from a quote by George Orwell, one which was more recently updated by Martin Amis, who said that "by the age of 40, everyone has the face they can afford." Amis' little saying may be the more apposite for our times, but there is something about the original Orwell, with its implications that all our experience, all our sins and virtues, may be written on our visages, that captured my imagination.
So, as I pass 40 this year, on December 5th, to be precise, I thought I would print here what my own face actually looks like. Up until now, readers of this blog will only have seen the picture I use of myself as a child. So, for the first time, here is what the nearly 40 year old David looks like.

Oh my, what a handsome chap I am! Seriously, though, if all our sins and virtues do happen to be written on our faces by this age, then I think, perhaps, I'm not doing too bad. Indeed, I am now quite happy with the way I look, but this was not always the case. Having piled on the pounds, due, mostly, to taking anti-psychotic medication, I became deeply unhappy with my appearance. OK, there are some who might say that appearances don't matter, are deceptive even, but if you are unhappy with yourself, I think this is a different matter, and I can attest, that since losing a great deal of the weight I carried, I have become a more confident and assured person.
And, as tomorrow is World Mental Health Day, I thought I would try to link this in some way to mental health. The best I can come up with is a little foray into the work of Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909). He was the Italian founder of the Italian School of "Positivist Criminology", which drew concepts from physiognomy, eugenics, psychiatry and Social Darwinism in its formation. In his theory of "anthropological criminology", Lombroso stated that criminality was inherited and could be identified by physical defects, which confirmed the criminal as savage or atavistic. Criminals, to him, represented a reversion to a primitive or subhuman type, characterized by physical features reminiscent of apes, lower primates and early man.
So, what has this to do with mental health? Well, as well as drawing on psychiatry in the formation of his theories, Lombroso once took charge of an "insane" asylum in Pesaro in 1871, later becoming a professor of psychiatry in 1896. So, it wouldn't be at all surprising to find that the mentally ill, as well as the criminal (and let's face it, the two are often confused, even today), perhaps fell under his deeply skewed gaze at some point or other.
Just so as you can judge whether Lombroso's theories were correct, here is a picture of an ape to compare with the one of me above.

I'm sure you'll agree that there is a certain simian similarity, descended anyway, as we all are, from ape-like creatures. But that's where (I hope!) it ends. So, I'm sure that Lombroso was pretty much up the creek with his theories, and got away with such (evil?) ideas by being protected by a cloak of intellectual and social propriety. But, as for getting the face I deserve, and considering my unwell past, I think I could probably be doing worse.

This is My Truth, Tell Me Yours.

2011-10-07T23:29:00.000-07:00

"There are three sides to every story: my side, your side and the truth. And no one is lying."

Robert Evans, "The Kid Stays in the Picture".

It just struck me that most of the posts on this blog are simply "my side" of a long and protracted story. The story of how I became unwell. The story of what I felt was mistreatment at the hands of some in mental health services. The story of my own experience of stigma, and of course how this impacts on others in the same situation. And in my last post, there was a little bit of politics, which has been the subject now of quite a few of my blogs. The thing is, all this is from one perspective. My own. And, as Robert Evans, Hollywood producer, attests above, there may not be only one, but three sides to every story. So, what struck me most was the question, am I an unreliable narrator?

I try to make this blog, particularly in terms of mental illness, as factually accurate as I can, but there are some things which appear to go beyond the realms of fact and into the realm of opinion. The argument, for example, over whether the label of "schizophrenia" should be abolished, or the argument over whether schizophrenia, as an organic brain condition, actually exists. I think I have tried, in my blogs, to put both sides of such arguments, but as far as "the truth" about such things goes, it is often hard to tell. There seem to be facts and statistics which back up both sides of such controversies. So, as a narrator of these things, I try to remain objective where I can.
Further to this, though, I am beginning to find that "the truth" in our society in general is difficult to decipher. The French philosopher, Roland Barthes, in his book "Mythologies", suggested that our world is made up of signs and representations which, rather than illuminating, seem to obscure the truth. Barthes' arguments, to my mind, were extremely prescient, perhaps being a forerunner to later postmodern theory which described modern, capitalist, media-saturated societies, where "representations" of reality actually begin to form the basis of reality itself. In postmodernism, the TV screen, the advertisement, or the Internet, become the foundation of the "real". In such an environment, then, how do we begin to decipher "truth"?
Well, Barthes remarked that one has to keep a certain distance from society if one is to analyse it. He believed that the "demythologiser", or seeker of truth, must remain, to a certain degree, an outsider to his own culture. But, even then, he feared, the "demythologiser" may have a mythology of his own.
As if to augment my own worries, it was recently stated on our local news that, increasingly, children of school age are beginning to believe in conspiracy theories, such as that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an "inside job", so to speak, or that Osama Bin Laden is still alive. This has been put down to the fact that more people now have access to the Internet, indeed the most democratic of mediums, but also open to misrepresentations due to a lack of regulation. Now, some are even suggesting that school children be educated in how to weed out truth from fiction in such an environment.
So, the truth, at least in our world, may be hard to find. And, in the end, all I can say of this blog is that this is, at least, my truth, why not tell me yours?

Nowhere "Left" to Go?

2011-10-04T00:33:00.000-07:00

I recently watched a TV series on BBC2, called "The Hour". Set during the 1950s at the time of the Suez Crisis, it used a basic thriller format to ask wider questions about the nature of democracy. Our democracy. But what struck me most in the programme was a small segment in which footage was shown of the Labour politician Aneurin Bevan delivering a speech in Trafalgar Square. The speech was delivered in a voice seldom heard today. It was a voice of disagreement and dissent. It was the voice of the "old" left. And, to me, it was inspiring.
Bevan had the guts, it appeared to me, to actually say what he thought about our involvement in the crisis, a crisis which, as far as I can make out, seems to have parallels with our current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, I think this may be why the programme makers chose this particular moment in history as the subject of their drama- to make us think about what is happening today.
I remember very well the initial outcry amongst the public when we first got involved in Iraq, when many came to London to march in protest against the impending war. Now, it seems, such things have been mostly forgotten, and we appear to be being carried along by a fervent wave of jingoism. Our servicemen and women are regarded, universally, as heroes. But to me, this hides an unpalatable truth about the nature of our entanglements abroad. Bevan himself said, in a speech given in the House of Commons on December 5th, 1956, that "we...conscript our boys and put guns and aeroplanes in their hands and say, 'bomb there'. Really this is so appalling that human language can hardly describe it." He goes on to say that the ministers in charge of handling the crisis "have support in the country", but that they should not "take comfort in that thought", for they had "resorted to epic weapons for squalid and trivial ends." So it is now that such is the support for "our boys", any dissenting voice about our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan can be discredited for being unpatriotic, for not supporting their heroic efforts. I would say, though, that it is quite possible to sympathise with the sacrifices being made by our servicemen and women, but be against the motives of the politicians who sent them to fight in the first place. And Bevan, it seems, articulated this very well all the way back in '56.
Recently, Tony Blair said that the Labour Party should not return to its "old left" values, saying that if they did they would never be re-elected. With the new leader Ed Miliband, the Labour Party may well have veered slightly to the left, although it is hardly a radical shift. But to my mind, towards the "old left" is exactly where the Labour Party should be headed. If there are those out there who would respond, like me, to a voice like that of Bevan's, then I think that it is time it was heard. As we appear to grow evermore towards a political consensus across all the parties, I think the Labour Party has nowhere left to go but further left.
Now, with protests even emerging in New York against the reckless and irresponsible behaviour of the bankers, one senses the beginning of a groundswell of opinion which can only find its voice in a left-wing vision. One yearns for the days, then, of the likes of Aneurin Bevan, a politician of principle and passion, who could be a voice of reason amidst so much madness.

The Social Network.

2011-09-28T09:45:00.000-07:00

Having taken part in the Viewpoint Survey, which I spoke of in my last post, the questions I was asked made me aware of something which, I think, may be a problem for many who have experience of mental ill health, and that is that during or after being unwell, one's social network can become not only altered, but also very limited. We know that because of stigma many can lose friends, face hostility from those they live near, and even become estranged from family. But also, even if one does make it through such difficult periods of adjustment and manage to forge a new existence and make new friends, it seems to me that one may still have a limited social network because this new existence may be one entirely based around mental illness.
It seems that those within mental health services would want service users to develop as wide a social network as possible, moving into circles which are outside the realms of the mental health field. But, if my own case is anything to go by, I have found this extremely difficult. My close friends, mostly, I have met through my own experience of mental illness, and undoubtedly they too have a history of mental ill health. The voluntary work I do is all about the stigma surrounding mental illness, and indeed it is the subject of (most) of this blog. You could say, then, that although I have had around six years of stability, mental illness is still the main focus of my attention.
So, it would be nice just to get away from all this mental health related stuff for a change, and in this blog, I have attempted to write, on occasion, of different subjects and other things which interest me. But, it does seem that once one has a history of mental ill health, it is not easy either to get better, or to develop links with the world of the "normals". Most social activities which mental health services can either provide or point you towards are for those with experience of mental illness. Such places as our local clubhouse network in Stoke-on-Trent, for example, provided by the charity Brighter Futures, which although they give people with mental illness a safe environment in which to meet and socialise, are not places where one can develop avenues out into the wider world. So, although such environments are a great way of finding one's social feet again, after so long one can begin to feel that one is living within some form of social ghetto, where there are clear distinctions between those with and those without experience of mental illness.
Having said that, it is not as if me and the friends I have made don't go anywhere else or talk about anything other than mental health. Indeed, me and my friends discuss everything from politics to our cultural pursuits to work, and of course, sometimes, as I do with my hairy, hippy friend Gary, aka klahanie, we just babble about not much in particular in the way that all good friends do. And, rarely do we talk about each other's diagnosis. To my friends, I am just Dave. And to me, they are just the kind and friendly bunch who have thought me worthy of being their friend. After years of getting only negativity from people who I had known all my life, it is refreshing to know that it is their perceptions which may have been false, and that my new friends seem to see an entirely different person to the one who was so derided in that previous life.
But, the problem still remains of forging links with the wider society. It is comforting and supportive within my own little circle at the moment, but I would like to venture further. For some, who are at stages in their illness when this seems truly scary, then, it seems, there are plenty of places for them to go. But, if you are like me, then your social network can begin to feel limited. How much this is, again, to do with stigma is a difficult question. All I know is that I have not, as a graduate and published author, had the same social opportunities afforded me as someone with the same qualifications, but without any experience of mental illness.

The Viewpoint Survey.

2011-09-24T01:13:00.000-07:00

After a couple of quite negative postings, I thought I would attempt to portray a more positive side of mental health by saying what is actually being done to combat the stigma surrounding it. The Viewpoint Survey is currently being carried out by the national mental health charity, Rethink, and The Institute of Psychiatry at King's College, London. It is asking mental health service users about how they are treated by others, with interviews being carried out over the telephone. The questions being asked cover a variety of topics, including how people have been treated in different areas of their lives, whether they have changed their behaviour because of their mental health diagnosis, whether they have educated people about, or challenged stigmatising views, and whether they have access to sources of practical help.
I learnt about the survey because I was randomly chosen to take part. The interview I took part in lasted around 30 minutes and covered all the above issues. The researchers are interested only in how you may have been treated over the last twelve months. I was told this is so they can assess, on a year to year basis, if the stigma "situation" is getting better or worse, and in what areas people are most affected. I would urge anyone who has been randomly chosen to take part, as the resulting research will be used to try to prevent unfair treatment in the future.
It also appears that my favourite anti-stigma guru is involved in the research. Yes, it's Professor Graham Thornicroft, author of the book, "Shunned", and much quoted by me in this blog. Also, the NHS themselves are involved, so hopefully the research done will have a pragmatic influence on how stigma is handled by mental health services.
So, together with the national "Time to Change" campaign, and also our own local efforts at The Media Action Group for Mental Health, this survey may go some way to, if not entirely eradicate, then erode, the problem of stigma.

You Took Me, You Shook Me, You Changed Me.

2011-09-20T09:19:00.000-07:00

"'There is no such thing as a good influence, Mr. Gray. All influence is immoral--immoral from the scientific point of view.'
'Why?'
'Because to influence a person is to give him one's own soul. He does not think his natural thoughts, or burn with his natural passions. His virtues are not real to him. His sins, if there are such things as sins, are borrowed. He becomes an echo of some one else's music, an actor of a part that has not been written for him. The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly--that is what each of us is here for. People are afraid of themselves, nowadays. They have forgotten the highest of all duties, the duty that one owes to one's self. Of course, they are charitable. They feed the hungry and clothe the beggar. But their own souls starve, and are naked. Courage has gone out of our race. Perhaps we never really had it. The terror of society, which is the basis of morals, the terror of God, which is the secret of religion--these are the two things that govern us. And yet--'"

Oscar Wilde, "The Picture of Dorian Gray".

There seems to be nothing like music to bring out an emotion. And today, listening to the soundtrack from the film, "Donnie Darko", I was suddenly taken back to the time the film was first released, and was struck by just how much has changed in my life since then. Gone is the over-sensitivity. Gone is the anger. Gone are the symptoms of illness. But, I also sometimes think, gone is a part of me that will not come back. Sure, I'm better now. If I had a job, I could probably hold it down. But the talent, if I can call it that, which managed to produce a book of poetry, seems to have dissipated. Throughout my journey through the mental health system, then, (in fact, I hate that word, "journey". Everybody, it seems, nowadays, has a "journey" to relate, and really, I don't want to become one of them. But for the while, such terminology will have to suffice) I have found that I have become, perhaps, a different person.

I don't think I can underestimate the role of mental health services in that change. From what I eat, to the way I behave, and perhaps, even , to the way I think, has been shaped by my treatment. So, the question I want to ask is, what is the morality which governs those who would seek to change us? Do they have some hot-line to a higher being who dictates what is right and what is wrong? Or is it, simply, that we must do what society expects of us, and so adapt ourselves to it? Of course the latter would seem to be the case. We would all be expected, at some point, to put our own little whims behind us in the service of a greater community. Or is it, as Wilde states, that we simply don't have the courage to disobey anymore, and so are rendered into lives of simply "doing the right thing", not because we feel it, but because it is expected of us?
OK, so in terms of mental health, we're talking about people who are ill. And maybe mental health services would simply say they are helping to get such people better. But, to me, when it comes to mental health, it seems it is not just about making you better, but also about making you more "socially acceptable". Perhaps those in practice would disagree, but I think I've had my fair share of moral judgements laid down about what kind of person I was. I remember being told such things as, "you really should have some self-respect", or, "well, at that point you really weren't a very nice person". Such seemingly personal comments, I would suggest, go beyond the boundaries of illness and into the realms of personality, and here I would say that it really is none of the business of such services to go about judging who one is.
Perhaps more pertinently, when I did once disobey what my psychiatrist asked me to do, I was unceremoniously refused further medication for my condition and also further treatment. A little harsh and extremely punitive, methinks. Disobedience to some may seem like a childish thing which we need to grow out of, but if we never disobey, how can we ever effect any change. Indeed, through my own little act of disobedience and the subsequent complaint I made about my treatment, the policy of our local psychiatric hospital was changed so that no one would leave without a supply of meds. Perhaps, then, to the "terror of society" and the "terror of God" we could add the "terror of psychiatry" as something which "governs" how we behave.
So, having been on the receiving end of such things, I now look beyond the realms of mental health, only to find that most people I encounter are "madder", more immoral and a lot less "nice" than the many I have met through my illness, and feel that if they were put through the rigours of psychiatric assessment, would not come out looking too good.
And if, as Wilde states, "all influence is immoral", just where does that leave all those who assess us and, seemingly, want to change us into more productive members of society? If all influence is a "bad" thing, and the purpose of life is "self-development", then I fear the entire mental health system, which in my case, took me, shook me and changed me, is on dodgy ethical grounds.

Just When You Thought it Was Safe to Get a Roommate with Mental Illness.

2011-09-11T17:48:00.000-07:00

I have just watched a film called "Roommate". It was one of those stalker movies which seem to have proliferated since the release of "Single White Female", I believe in the early '90s. And the thing about "Roommate" is, that aside from being a bad film, it is also one of the most grossly misrepresentative of mental illness I have seen in recent years.
The action, if you can call it that, centres around one young girl, Sara, as she goes off to college for the first time. Needless to say, Sara is attractive, Sara is popular, Sara has a good relationship with her family, Sara soon meets a boy, who is also good looking, and Sara is talented in the area of fashion design. In short, Sara is so banally perfect that she makes you feel like being sick.
However, there is one fly in Sarah's designer ointment, and that is her roommate, Rebecca, who at first appears, like all "psychos" in such films, to be sweet and charming, but later turns into a manipulative, violent stalker from hell.
At first oblivious to Rebecca's true nature, Sara does not know that she has beaten up her best friend, blackmailed a college professor who made a pass at Sara, kidnapped a member of Sara's family, and even killed a fluffy little kitten, which Sara had brought in off the streets, by putting it in a tumble dryer. I mean, just how evil can you be? I can almost cope with the stuff Rebecca does to humans, but the cat is just a step too far.
It is only when Sara goes with Rebecca to her home that things start to become clearer for her, at one point Rebecca's Mum asking Sara, "so, how is Rebecca doing? I mean, is she taking her medication?" At this, Sara suddenly baulks, goes back to her room at college, only to discover that Rebecca takes, or should be taking, a drug called Zyprexa, or Olanzapine, which, she finds out via the Internet, is used "in the treatment of psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar". And, in the predictable denouement, Rebecca is finally found out and suitably dispensed in the grisly way that all such evil-doers inevitably are.
So, all becomes clear. The reason why Rebecca is such a "freak" is because she suffers from either schizophrenia or bipolar. It's funny, though, that in the film, Rebecca does not display the symptoms of either of those illnesses. She is just presented as a thoroughly strange, violent character, who appears to be fully cognisant of her actions, which, if she were truly in a psychotic state, she would not be.
Once again, then, a link is made between mental illness, violence, and just plain bad behaviour, which, for those of you who have read this blog, I needn't remind you is a spurious link. And this would all appear to stem from a misunderstanding of the terms "psychosis" or "psychotic". Whereas in actuality psychosis is merely a term which describes a set of symptoms, such as delusions and hallucinations, in some movies it appears you cannot call someone "psychotic" without them being violent, criminal and deviant. Such films propagate a fear of mental ill health which is wholly unwarranted.
What I also found irksome about the film was its portrayal of the "normal", of which Sara is a shining example, as opposed to the abnormal or deviant, as represented by Rebecca. It seems that in the environment such movies advertise, someone who is even slightly "different" would come to be feared and vilified, not just the likes of Rebecca, and that cannot be, to my mind, a very tolerant place to live.
What's more, I just don't know how movie-makers can get away with distributing this sort of misrepresentative crap anymore. If this were gay or other minority groups being portrayed in this way, then everyone would surely be up in arms, but of all the reviews of this film I read on the Internet, not one of them mentioned its grossly unfair portrayal of mental illness. And, it didn't seem to affect the film's box office return either, with it going to the number one spot on its opening weekend, raking in an estimated $15 million.
Just as you begin to think that you are making inroads into the problem of stigma, then, a film like this comes along and blows your apparently grandiose ideas out of the water. Indeed, just as we may have got people thinking that it might be safe to live with someone with experience of illnesses like schizophrenia, there always seems to be some negative portrayal hanging round the corner, or a college dorm, inevitably brandishing a very sharp knife.

Two 'Planes. Two Buildings. One Tragedy.

2011-09-09T01:54:00.000-07:00

Today is two days before the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack on New York, an event which took thousands of lives, but shook the entire world, possibly being the defining influence on U.S. foreign policy for the last decade.
It seems, like with other age-defining moments in history, everybody remembers where they were when the attacks took place. I remember at that time that I was very ill, staying in bed all day, only to awake, bleary-eyed, some time in the early evening. So it was that I awoke around 6 pm, and, turning on the TV, found the BBC news running constantly, relaying the story and pictures from across the Atlantic. At first, like so many, I almost couldn't believe what I was seeing. Was this a film? Was this real? Did it really happen? I was in genuine shock at the events which had unfolded and at the gradual realisation that, yes, this was real. This was not a film. This had really happened.
With the unfolding of the years since the attacks, and with the subsequent wars being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have grown a little cynical of the government's motives, both here and in the U.S.. What, I think, one cannot be cynical about, though, is the way New Yorkers responded to the attacks on their city. Even Oliver Stone, the sometimes controversial film-maker and oftentimes critic of U.S. policy, said that, almost universally, people behaved well that day, and his film, "World Trade Center", is a sort of celebration of the heroism displayed amidst the chaos and tragedy, a paean to the human will and spirit to overcome adversity.
Of course, there have been many more terrorist attacks since that day, including the 7/7 bombings in London. But none seem to have had both the real and also symbolic significance of the events of 9/11, and since that day, it seems, life has changed. The face of our foreign and domestic affairs has shifted to account for the dangers of the terrorist threat, and unfortunately, this has led some to become fearful of, and to vilify, the whole Muslim community. Even here in Stoke-on-Trent very recently, two people attempted to set fire to a local newly built mosque. One, it transpired, had served in our armed forces. Many, it seems, have begun to question multi-culturalism itself, most notably the writer, Martin Amis, who has pronounced multi-culturalism to be "a polite fiction".
The fall-out from those terrible events which took place now almost exactly ten years ago, then, has not been good. And perhaps the tragedy of that day is extending itself, with more of our troops dying abroad, and the motives of our government's involvement in those areas, to my mind, becoming increasingly dubious.
So, there were two 'planes. There were two buildings. And there was one tragedy, so great that it continues to send shock-waves into our present. As we all remember that day, then, perhaps we should concentrate on the only good thing which seems to have come out of it, and that is the heroism and fortitude displayed by those who were there in New York that day.

A Grand Day Out.

2011-08-31T02:28:00.000-07:00

I can't remember exactly when it was. It could have been the summer of '95. Or maybe it was earlier than that. '94 perhaps. But it was definitely summer, and the sun shone brightly on us as we (me and two other friends from university) went to see R.E.M. in concert at the Milton Keynes Bowl. I had first travelled to London to meet up with my friends, who were also big fans, like me, of Michael Stipe and his band. As so many people that day were travelling from London to see the concert, the journey by train to Milton Keynes took longer and was more arduous than expected. There was much queueing and waiting around. So much so that my feet began to ache even before we got to our destination, due to a lack of available seats.
When we finally arrived, though, the day turned out to be worth all the trouble. I can't really believe now the bands that we saw who played in support of the main act. Radiohead, then not nearly as big as they later became, played a brilliant set before the appearance of our favourite band. I think that it was then that I became an instant fan of Radiohead, and it was kind of nice to newly discover their music before they became the hugely popular outfit of later years. In fact, I think they were still playing their hit, "Creep", as part of their act, a song which must still appeal to every disaffected teenager on the block, with lyrics like, "I'm a creep, I'm a weirdo, What the hell am I doing here, I don't belong here".
So, it was almost dusk, and the brilliant sun was beginning to set, before R.E.M. appeared on stage. They played all our favourite songs, and the ever-eccentric Stipe danced around on stage with almost alarming vigour, his eyes covered in what appeared to be blue make-up. Indeed, the lead singer and our hero of that time was said to be becoming increasingly eccentric in his ways, while the other members of the band, Peter Buck, Mike Mills and Bill Berry, simply looked on, playing their instruments to blistering effect.

Michael Stipe, lead singer of R.E.M.

It was well into the night before the set was finished, but it soon became clear to me that the sun was setting on more than just a grand day out. Indeed, what I remember most from that day was the atmosphere generated by all the young people who had turned up to see the band play. There was a veritable buzz of enthusiasm, joy and hope in the air, as we watched the sea of heads in front of us bob up and down to the beat of every song. And, whenever I watch other bands play now on the TV at live gigs, what tends to grab my attention is the great wave of young people- happy, smiling, having fun.
So, as we exited the concert, it now seems to me that it was a symbolic exiting of sorts. I had now finished university and my youthful idealism was still (almost) intact, yet to be ravaged by the vagaries of experience. But I was going to leave all that behind. I had already experienced depression in my first year at university, which now seemed to be developing more into a schizophrenic type of flattening of emotion. As I left the gig, then, I was shutting the door on something very important, and opening the door to something else.
So, now I'm older, I sometimes wonder what happened to that former self. Am I a better person now? Has experience made me a wiser and more humane person, or has it just, as it seems to do with so many, left me jaded? Reading a book recently I was drawn, then, to one character who, as he remembers his long lost youth and the idealism of it all, asks the question, "what the hell happened to me?" To which his friend replies, "You grew up, just like everybody else."
Needless to say that day retains a special place in my memory. It was the day I started to really grow up. It was the day I think I began to lose something special, and for a while there I didn't think I'd get over it. It's always good to remember though, that just as the sun sets, it also rises.

More than One in Four?

2011-08-27T19:56:00.000-07:00

There is an often bandied about statistic in mental health circles which would seem to prove that mental illness is more common than one might think, and that is that mental ill health will affect one in four people at some stage in their lives. Such statistics are often used by anti-stigma campaigners to show that mental ill health is really quite common and should not, therefore, be the subject of so many negative attitudes and behaviours. However, in an article in "The Guardian" last year ("Antidepressant use rises as recession feeds wave of worry", 11.6.2010) it was revealed that the number of people being treated for mental illness could be even greater than the one in four statistic suggests.
According to the article, the number of prescriptions handed out for antidepressants had risen from 20.1 million in 1999, to a staggering 39.1 million in 2009, a 95% increase over only ten years. The article, as its title suggests, attributed this new "wave" of mental illness to a reaction by many to the harshness of living amidst the economic recession.
However, other reasons for this apparent rise were given, some seeing it as a result of a better diagnostic process and, perhaps, more people "coming out", as it were, about their conditions due to there being less stigma surrounding depression than has been previously encountered. Others saw it as an indictment of NHS practice, where doctors hand out pills as an "easy option", instead of considering things such as "talking therapies" to treat more mild or moderate cases. Also, there was the consideration that antidepressants are also used to treat different conditions like social anxiety and post-traumatic stress. Add to that that many must return to their doctors throughout the year for new prescriptions for the same problem as antidepressants are usually needed for six months or sometimes longer and one begins to form a slightly different picture of the situation.
Having said that, whatever the reasons for the rise in the prescription of antidepressants, the fact that it has happened is not being disputed. And this, it seems, would be, in a strange kind of way, good news for anti-stigma campaigners, as the apparent ubiquity of mental ill health appears to be proven beyond doubt. Indeed, with the current UK population estimated at around 63 million, we might even begin to say that mental illness is more common than the one in four statistic would have us believe.
With, it seems, over half the population being treated, at some point throughout the year, for depression or other illnesses which require the use of antidepressants, one would hope that mental illness is now so common that it loses its taboo identity.
It is not so good news, however, for those who experience mental ill health. Depression can be a hugely debilitating illness, one which one would not wish on anyone. And while we, in the anti-stigma business, might be glad that more people are coming forward for treatment, those being treated are not likely to share our enthusiasm.
So, as the statistics surrounding the abundance of mental ill health in our country seem to be going through the roof, one wonders where it will all lead. Less stigma, perhaps, but one would also hope that treatment for mental illness continues to improve and, instead of just doling out drugs, doctors will take the time to listen to their patients problems properly and begin to prescribe other treatments which may be more appropriate.

Making a Boob of Myself.

2011-08-22T05:34:00.000-07:00

The other week, I was at the "China Gardens" at the Festival Park in Etruria, where myself and other volunteers at the Media Action Group for Mental Health stopped off for a little light refreshment after taking a walk through the park area of the site as part of an art project we are currently undertaking with the help of a local artist. As I sat there sipping my coffee, I looked over to the right, where I saw, out of the corner of my eye, that someone had scratched some kind of message into one of the wooden tables which populate the garden area. Upon closer inspection I could see that the message inscribed simply read, "I like boobs". In fact, it didn't even make that much grammatical sense, and in truth all it really said was, "I like boob". As I sat there, I pondered the level of a mind that would write such an inanity, with Philip Larkin's poem "Sunny Prestatyn" going through my mind, but ended up thinking, well, I suppose I like boobs too.
But, this is not going to be a post about the male love of that particular part of the female anatomy. Rather, it is going to be about the male propensity to develop such things themselves. Indeed, the "man-boob", also referred to as the "moob", seems to be an ever-increasing problem faced by a number of males, and appears to be getting much mention in certain sections of the media. In the latest development, we are told that celebrity comedian David Walliams suffers from "man-boobia". And, looking on the internet, there are a veritable plethora of sites dedicated to helping sufferers of the "man-boob" phenomenon.
So, where has all this talk of man-boobs come from? A few years ago, I'd never even heard of man-boobs, but now, it seems, you can't escape the term's ubiquity. Perhaps it is that men are just becoming that bit more sensitive about their bodies. It would appear that women have always been objectified by men, and we are told of the pressures women face from continual media representations of the "perfect" female form. Now, though, it seems that men can't escape such scrutiny, as we are told by women just how unattractive man-boobs can be, and increasingly the promulgation of the perfect physique is not restricted to just the female body. Perhaps it is also that an increasing number of us are becoming obese, probably exacerbating the possibility of developing man-boobs.
It should be said, though, that the man-boob phenomenon is a genuine, recognised medical condition, called gynecomastasia or gynaecomastasia. It is often associated with disease or metabolic disorders and occurs most frequently in adolescents and the elderly. The cause has been generally attributed to an imbalance in sex hormones. Genuine gynecomastasia, though, which is the actual growth of glandular tissue, should be distinguished from psuedogynecomastasia or lipomastasia, which is due to excessive adipose tissue or fat.
To link this, in an obscure way, to mental health, I suppose that the taking of anti-psychotic medication, which can induce weight gain, may lead to the development of moobs, albeit not the genuine type. I was even told by one psychiatrist that such medication sometimes contains the female hormone prolactin which may induce the growth of man-boobs and even lead some to secrete milk (yuk!).
So, having at one time been grossly overweight, I can attest to once having my own glorious pair of moobs. Now, though, as I have lost a great deal of the old poundage, this problem has abated somewhat, and it would seem that I never had genuine gynecomastasia. All I can say of my man-boob phase, then, is thanks for the mammaries, and I certainly hope that I haven't made a boob of myself with this post.

The Age Demanded.

2011-08-20T23:53:00.000-07:00

The phrase used in the title above I believe first appears in the poem "Hugh Selwyn Mauberley" (1920) by Ezra Pound, in which it states, "The age demanded an image/ Of its accelerated grimace". However, it was also later used as the title of a poem by Ernest Hemingway in 1922.
Anyway, this little phrase, and also Hemingway's poem, got me thinking, after writing in my last post about public reactions to the recent riots, just what our own age "demands", which in itself may be a little demanding for me, and I would say these are just a few thoughts on the subject, and aren't intended to be some kind of exhaustive analysis.
I thought I would concentrate on the young, as it appears that most of those involved in the rioting were young people, some mere children at only 11 years old. So, as I remarked in my previous post, people have launched out on countless lines of speculation as to what might be going wrong with our younger generation, most of the public seeming to advocate more discipline with a return to things like conscription, corporal punishment and some even the use of "the birch".
To my mind, though, a return to these kind of, in some instances, almost medieval, punishments is not at all the answer and I think that many of the older generation underestimate the pressures faced by our young.
For a start, it seems, the younger generation are constantly bombarded with images and messages from advertising and the media which continually tell them what they should aspire to be. For those at the lower end of the economic scale, such idealised images contrast harshly with everyday reality, and yet there they are, every day, suggesting that to be accepted or to "belong" requires that you have this or that particular product.
Indeed, the whole of our society seems to be based around the acquisition of money and things. How do you become respected? Through having money and owning stuff.
However, for many, the means with which to go about getting what you want, or what you are taught to think you want, are being continually eroded. Inroads for the poor to education now appear to be getting narrower, with only those who can afford to come out of university with an enormous amount of debt being able to go there. Unemployment is high and, increasingly, with government cuts, support for those who find themselves in such situations is being taken away. Even speaking for myself, at the age of nearly 40 and having had a long-term illness, I can say that while the government advocates a return to work for many in my situation, one wonders where the jobs are and what support is out there to achieve the goal of actually gaining employment. It seems that we are having a carrot constantly dangled in front of us, only to have it rudely snatched away in some kind of perverse, sarcastic game.
Add to that that the government seeks to blame such socio-economic ills on the poor and vulnerable, forever suggesting that people like myself are cheating the system and getting something for nothing. And the public appear to swallow this and thus ask for more and more stringent measures. The young working-class also, it seems, do not escape this sort of demonisation, consistently being portrayed as feckless, lazy, even criminal yobs. The ubiquitous image of "the hoody", causing trouble for everyone, has now become, in my area at least, a sort of short-hand to describe what young people are like. We have even managed to criminalise their behaviour in the form of the ASBO. Growing up around such a negative image cannot be easy, even if you are not in any way like what others seem to think you are. Having had experience of schizophrenic illness, I can attest to the difficulties caused by such stereotyping.
People also often speak of role-models. But who are the role-models of today? Those in authority would appear to consistently let us down. MPs lie and cheat themselves. The banking crisis revealed truly reckless and greedy behaviour on behalf of what must be some of the richest people in our country, but where is the punishment for them? And yet, it is some of these very people in authority who say that it is our standards that have dropped. That it's really all the fault of a certain "sick", as David Cameron put it, section of society.
So, I think that our society sends out many conflicting messages to our young people, and if it upsets a burgeoning 40 year old, I can only imagine what it must be like to grow up amidst all this, where you must see your opportunities constantly dwindling and your hope slowly fading.
I must say then, I concur with the message in Hemingway's poem, which I shall print in its entirety here:
"The age demanded that we sing
And cut away our tongue.

The age demanded that we flow
And hammered in the bung.

The age demanded that we dance
And jammed us into iron pants.

And in the end the age was handed
The sort of shit that it demanded."

Public Opinion- A Blueprint for Sociopathy?

2011-08-15T22:30:00.000-07:00

A little while ago, well, in fact, quite a long time ago, we at the Pathways Group, for some reason, began discussing the "Jeremy Kyle Show". We, most of us, said how we detested that show. Kyle's obvious right-wing opinions, how he berates and, literally, shouts his guests into submission. And yet, one in our group, a student nurse, said, "well, I like it, because he always seems to say what you're thinking yourself." To which, of course, me and my leftist mate replied, "well, he doesn't say what I'm thinking!" However, I was somewhat taken aback by the possibility that anyone of intelligence could possibly share Kyle's belligerent attitude.
But, it seems, more and more, public opinion is becoming intolerant. I have written of this before in previous posts, but nothing made this more apparent than the reaction to the recent riots which erupted throughout England.
Of course people have launched out on various waves of speculation as to what actually caused the riots. Was it the fault of parents, as most who took part appeared to be young people? Was it a lack of discipline throughout society? And, what should we do about it? For many, throughout the rioting, so disgusted were they by the acts of wanton destruction, that they called for police to bring in water-cannons and to use "plastic bullets", both of which have been used in Ireland, but neither ever on mainland Britain. Even the police were reluctant to take such drastic measures, but the public cry for them was alarmingly evident.
Now, the government, always apparently keen on "listening" to the public, seems to be capitulating to demands to withdraw all benefits payments from those who took part in the rioting, and some councils are considering throwing out people who were involved from their council houses. This would, it seems, assuage the public demands for a swift, decisive and severe response.
However, to my mind, such drastic measures could only serve to make a bad problem worse. As the gap between rich and poor grows ever wider, and in a world where justice seems to be an outmoded concept, is it really any wonder that anger and resentment ferments amidst the lower echelons of our society? That is not to excuse such behaviour, and of course one's sympathy goes out to those whose property was destroyed and who even lost relatives amidst the mayhem. But, it still seems to me that both the public and government are having a "knee-jerk" response to all this, and some within the legal system have remarked that, out of this situation, some particularly "rough" justice may be being meted out.
But, to return to public opinion for a moment, one only has to go to the government's "e-petition" page to see how intolerant we seem to have become. By far the most popular petition at present is the one to withdraw benefits payments from those involved in the rioting. By far the most repeated petition (I think it appears in around five different guises on the site) is one to bring back capital punishment. There are also calls to get rid of all European human rights legislation. OK, so some of the petitions on the site are not to take such retrograde steps, and they are really quite varied. I, however, do find it worrying that the public hold such apparently barbarous beliefs. And, even in our local paper, one letter concerning the riots argued that how can we expect anything else than such behaviour from people when we can't even smack children in schools anymore? Some even called for a return to conscription.
It would seem, then, that the majority of us increasingly see the world as one constrained by political correctness, where discipline, values and morality have eroded to such a degree that people behave like "feral", mindless criminals. But, is that really all there is to it? Indeed, that is not the world I see. I see a place where the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" is getting bigger, where those in the lower-classes and even vulnerable people are increasingly demonised, where bankers, who we must remember brought about the economic collapse which the world faces, continue to award themselves obscene amounts of money and seem to have escaped any retribution for their actions, and where expensive wars are fought on particularly dubious grounds.
So, as the public cry out for increasingly cut-throat measures, should we really listen to them? Should we just throw people on the streets, withdraw their benefits, start hanging people, go back to smacking our children, and get rid of human rights legislation which prevents us from acting in such inhumane ways? Or is it that we should actually start listening to what our young and disaffected people are saying and afford them a little respect in the hope that it may be returned. If we don't do this, the public mentality will come over to some, me included, and as one "Observer" commentator suggested, as a virtual "blueprint for a sociopathic society".

The Fork in the Road.

2011-08-08T02:22:00.000-07:00

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less travelled by,

And that has made all the difference."

Robert Frost, "The Road Not Taken".

The other day my Dad and I were discussing "life". Yeah, quite a big subject, really. But it seemed my Dad, after 80 years on the planet, had distilled his view of life down to one governing imperative, and that was that our existence is mostly dictated by chance or coincidence. He dislikes the term "fate" because, he said, for him, it had associations with bad things happening to people. So, he relayed to me how the result of his own very colourful life had been mostly a matter of chance.
Firstly, I should perhaps explain that my Dad has indeed had an eventful existence. Joining the army at 15, he went on to fight in the Korean war. After that, having trained in the army as an engineer, he got various jobs working in that capacity. Employed by people such as "Marconi", his job took him to many different places, and he lived in both Germany and Turkey, as well as spending time in Brazil. In fact, I remember very well the photograph in which you can see my Dad standing atop the Sugarloaf Mountain, sporting a pair of the widest checked flairs you could ever wish to see. In fact, I wonder if he still has that particular pair of brilliant trousers- maybe I could wear them to a fancy dress party.
But, to return to the point, my Dad has often told me stories about how his life could have been so very different. The time, for example, during the Korean war, when he was sitting in a bunker with nothing to do at that particular time, and so was called over to the adjoining shelter by some other soldiers who were playing cards. As my Dad wasn't doing anything, he went over to them to join the game. Five minutes later, a shell hit directly where my Dad had been sitting, completely demolishing that part of the bunker. So, had my Dad not moved over to the others, he would, quite simply, have died. Now, he would perhaps be just another name on a wall somewhere, and I and my brother would not exist. Perhaps less dramatically, but nonetheless important, were times when my Dad turned down jobs, once in Germany, and once, I believe, to go and work in Mauritius. On both these occasions, he explained, had he taken up those positions, life would have been incredibly different. Had he taken the job in Germany, for example, he would perhaps never have met my Mum, and again, me and my brother would not be here.
All this, inevitably, got me to thinking about my own life, and how things could have been different. Although I have nothing as colourful to relay as is in my Dad's past, I do remember times when only if I had said or done a certain thing, my life could have been wholly changed. Had I only spoken out at certain times, I may well be married by now, with children. And, in terms of my own life, it seems that these would not have been big, dramatic events like in my Dad's, but only very small things, perhaps even just nuances in the way something was explained or said, that could have resulted in a very different existence.
I am reminded, then, of the film "Sliding Doors", in which the character played by Gwyneth Paltrow is seen either missing or catching an underground train in London. From these two different occurrences, the difference between which seems mere chance, two entirely different realities emerge. Similarly, in the recent film, "Source Code", the possibility that such divergent realities can exist is explored.
So, in my alternate reality, there is a man, standing on a beach. He seems deep in thought as he watches the waves of the sea ebb and flow. And then, two young children come up to greet him, and it soon becomes apparent that he is their father. A second later, a woman comes up to him and embraces him in her arms.
OK, so my alternate reality may be a little idealised. But, it seems, we will all face, at some point, that fork in the road. That point at which a decision will be made, or simply something said or done, or not said, or not done, which will ultimately alter our lives and send us down paths the end to which it will be hard to imagine. Take care, then, in this endeavor, for, as the poet Robert Frost stated, it could make "all the difference".

Writer's Blog.

2011-08-03T20:19:00.000-07:00

I don't know about others who write blogs on a fairly regular basis, but for me, coming up with something to write about every week has become something of a task, if not a chore. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy writing my blog and at times it has even been a cathartic tool, allowing me to vent feelings that I would have previously perhaps just bottled up. It's just that, of late, as I scour my increasingly frustrated brain, I seem to be finding it more difficult to find topics to write about.
This is, in part, no doubt due to the fact that I feel I have virtually exhausted the subject which this blog is about- mental ill health and the stigma which surrounds it. Frankly, as most of the activities I undertake are to do with this subject too, I am beginning to get a little bored banging on about stigma and its pernicious effects. It could be also that many readers, after a while, begin to suffer some sort of compassion fatigue, and are, perhaps, fed up with the many appeals to their conscience which are out there- starving people in Africa, the plight of mistreated animals, sufferers of cancer. After a certain time, perhaps we all become a little inured to such appeals, desensitized simply by their apparent ubiquity, and mental health becomes just another "issue".
So, as I have nothing else to write about, perhaps I should write about the seeming inability to write, or what is also known as the peculiar phenomenon of writer's block. In this instance, though, maybe I should call it "writer's blog".
Indeed, it seems that many writers have taken to writing about not being able to write. Stephen King, for example, in both his novella, "Secret Window, Secret Garden", and the novel, "The Shining", created characters who were themselves writers and were suffering from some form of creative block. In Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of "The Shining" I'm sure we can all remember the scene where Shelley Duvall, despite reassurances from her husband Jack Torrance that his new fictional work is going well, finds, in his absence, innumerable pages filled with only one phrase repeated over and over again- "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy". Eventually Torrance, played by Jack Nicholson in the film, has a complete mental breakdown and tries to kill his wife and son. In George Orwell's novel, "Keep the Aspidistra Flying", the main character Gordon Comstock struggles to complete an epic poem. In George Gissing's "New Grub Street", writer's block is the main theme, with the character of novelist Edwin Reardon becoming completely unable to write. In Micheal Chabon's "Wonder Boys", college English professor Grady Tripp, despite claiming that he does not believe in writer's block, has been unable to finish a promised third novel after seven years. And finally, in the film "Adaptation", in a marvellous piece of postmodern self-reflexiveness, Nicolas Cage plays the screenwriter Charlie Kaufman in a film which is itself written by Charlie Kaufman, as he struggles, without much success, to complete a screen adaptation of Susan Orlean's book, "The Orchid Thief".
So, if you're stuck for something to write about, why not, as all the above have done, write about not being able to write. And as I struggle with the tyranny of the blank page, I'm beginning to ponder just exactly what my next post will be about. I know that it's going to be witty, insightful, intelligent, entertaining and accessible, but not to the extent that it insults the reader's own intelligence. It's going to be all those things. My God, it's going to be a masterpiece of blogging. I just have to find a subject. Now, what could that be....?

Goodbye Amy.

2011-07-24T20:21:00.000-07:00

After writing, only in my last post, about the use of drugs and an increase in deaths caused by such things as excessive drinking and smoking, on Saturday, 23rd July, I found out that the brilliant, but troubled singer, Amy Winehouse, had been found dead at her Camden home at the appallingly young age of only 27. I can only say that, as a fan, I was shocked and upset by the news. Indeed, for me, who does not usually become overly-emotional at such things, I was, somewhat to my own surprise, overtly moved and saddened.
Perhaps it is because Amy's life was so turbulent that I felt this way. Having had a long battle with drugs and alcohol, Amy had also had problems, it had been reported, in the area of mental health. At one stage she was said to have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, although did not take medication for this condition. She was also said to have had trouble with an eating disorder, and on many occasions appeared painfully thin.
Such problems were also, of course, accompanied with a huge, raw talent, and Amy, even though she made only two albums, "Frank" and "Back to Black", was regarded as one of the most talented singers of her generation. Her music, often a fusion of Jazz, Soul and Rock, together with a nod towards the girl groups of the '60s, was indeed worthy of note amongst the other, increasingly homogenised, output of pop groups and singers. Indeed, Amy was, and probably would have described herself as, an "artist", not just another voice on the radio.
Despite this, Amy veered increasingly into the art of self-destruction. Seemingly like so many other female artists before her, Amy seemed to live life in the dramatic fashion of her songs, and indeed, her own plight seems to have become synonymous with her song "Rehab", which contains the unforgettable line, "they wanted me to go to rehab, but I said no, no, no!"
So it was that towards the end of her short, but brilliant career, she perhaps became better known for her tempestuous relationships and frequent forays into drug-taking excess. At the last concert she gave, she was, unfortunately, booed off stage by a resentful crowd as she slurred her way through what became virtually unrecognizable songs.
For me, though, I can't help looking back at the Amy of the years of her first album, "Frank". On its cover is a fresh-faced, smiling, happy, attractive Amy, seemingly with the world at her feet, and before the bee-hive, eye make-up, tattoos and excessive thinness. I can't help thinking that it would be nice to have that Amy still around, giving succour to, and enhancing, our own lives and loves with her music. Sadly, tragically, this cannot be. And surely, through her talent, Amy has left us with an indelible legacy, and despite the excesses, was surely more than "just another rock 'n' roll suicide", as the words in David Bowie's song state.
To me, as one who has experienced mental ill health and also problems with alcohol, Amy's death seems all the more poignant, although I must say that at the time of writing this post, the cause of her death remained "unexplained". I would just say, then, goodbye Amy. You will be missed.

It is Anathema to Idiots...

2011-07-15T22:57:00.000-07:00

The other day on our local radio station, BBC Radio Stoke, it was announced that admissions to hospital for women aged between 30 and 60 for alcohol-related problems had increased by a third over the last few years. This statistic was taken from hospital admissions specifically related to my own locality of Stoke-on-Trent. Numerous people came on the radio to comment about the issue, and, to me, only one made any sense of this disturbing statistic. She was a woman from the charity, "Brighter Futures", and her suggestion was that we face such economic and social discontent in our area that such figures are not really surprising. She went on to suggest that people have to be given hope for at least some kind of future if we want them to adhere to suggested limits of the ingestion of things like alcohol. Why, she postulated, would people actually want to live in a terrible situation until old age? If you don't have any hope, why bother?
This was an admittedly depressing summing up of the situation, but one I felt was nonetheless true. We were also told only a couple of days later that smoking-related deaths in Stoke-on-Trent were among the highest, if not the highest, throughout the land. So, just how does one account for such self-destructive behaviour other than with the above conclusion?
I suppose the taking of (any) drugs goes back a long way in history. People, it seems, have always felt the need to medicate themselves with illicit substances. Indeed, I can think of a few striking examples of such behaviour in literature, such as Thomas De Quincey's "Confessions of an English Opium Eater", Aldous Huxley's account of his experiences with LSD, "The Doors of Perception", Hunter S. Thompson's drug-addled narrative, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", and, of course, perhaps the unofficial laureate of drug addiction, William Burroughs' accounts of his dope (or heroin) abuse in books such as "Naked Lunch" and "Junky". Indeed, Burroughs used addiction as an all-embracing metaphor for the way in which our lives are controlled and even believed that, in the future, right-wing forces would use the hysteria surrounding drug abuse as a means of justifying the creation of a police state. Such libertarian views are in stark opposition to our current belief in prohibition as a way of controlling the drug problem, and, it seems, that these few examples prove that drug addiction is not a problem limited to the economically poor and hopeless, but can also affect the intellectual and literary.
Indeed, during the '60s counter-cultural movements, the use of drugs was not seen as so destructive as it is today. The hippy generation smoked "grass" and consumed LSD as a means of supposedly achieving higher states of consciousness and transcendence. Whether this actually turned out to be the case is, perhaps, another matter, and many people's experience of such drugs may be closer to Woody Allen's description in the film, "Annie Hall", where he explains that he once "took a puff" and ended up trying to take his pants off over his head. For others, and more seriously, such drug abuse can lead to mental instability and, if I am correct, the incidence of such drug-induced mental illness is also on the rise.
But, there does seem to have been a certain romanticism around drug-taking in times gone by. Even certain deaths at the hands of drugs have been seen as somewhat romantic. Would, for example, Jim Morrison be idolised in the way he is by some had he not died so young and in such circumstances?
However, there were some who dispelled the belief that drug-taking and dying from it was somehow romantic, as David Bowie's song "Rock and Roll Suicide" attests. Also, one might consider that by taking excessive amounts of illicit substances you may end up looking like Keith Richards, who says himself that he looks that way "so other people don't have to."
So, in more recent times drugs and the taking of them has been harshly condemned, both morally and for health reasons. But, I would suggest to those who judge too harshly others who fall prey to such substance misuse, that they should try to understand exactly why people indulge in such behaviour. To me, the lady from "Brighter Futures" came close to explaining it, but it was, perhaps, William Burroughs himself who put it best, saying that, "narcotics have been systematically scapegoated and demonised. The idea that anyone can use drugs and escape a horrible fate is anathema to those idiots."
So, as I sit here smoking a fag and supping a nice, cold beer, I can say that I sympathise with those who, it would seem, anaesthetise themselves to life for whatever reason. But, the people of Stoke, who are certainly seeming to live fast and die young, are not exactly burning bright, and they're certainly not leaving any beautiful corpses. Such romanticism is perhaps reserved for the Jim Morrisons of this world.

Marketing Madness.

2011-07-08T18:05:00.000-07:00

"Many of the battles we fought were over issues of 'representation'- a loosely defined set of grievances mostly lodged against the media, the curriculum and the English language...ours was a politics of mirrors and metaphors."

Naomi Klein, "No Logo".

At the Media Action Group for Mental Health, part of our stated aim is to "promote positive, accurate and realistic images of mental health and people who live with mental distress." The key word here, perhaps, is "images", for at our charity, we are mostly concerned with what is sometimes termed "identity politics". That is to say, we do not promote actual, concrete reforms in law, for example, but rather, seek to better the "representation" of mental illness and those with experience of it. Our hope is that by doing this, some social change will take place- knowledge, attitudes and behaviour will somehow transmogrify.

As Naomi Klein (above) points out in her book, "No Logo", the politics of representation became the raison d'etre of many rights movements in the late '80s and 90s. In what she calls the "political correctness wars", the feminist, gay and racial equality movements largely became about how such classes of the oppressed were represented in the media, literature and language. As she states, this became a case of veritably altering people's consciousness, that "for real progress to take place, imaginations...had to be decolonized."

But, as she goes on to point out, it wasn't long before advertising and marketing executives became savvy to this trend. If diversity was what this generation wanted, then it would be sold back to them with added interest. So, Klein states, "a P.C. marketing craze" ensued in which the ideas and political beliefs of a generation were appropriated by the corporations, essentially selling their own ideas back to them. And, this was no social, cultural or political revolution, but one based on the pure economic sense of the branded world. Meanwhile, the corporations would go on in their unethical fashion, increasingly occupying our cultural and even mental "space", limiting our choices, and changing the face of our economies.

I feel this is something for us to think about at the Media Action Group. As we are in the business of representation, our latest campaign, "Local People, Local Lives" perhaps owes more to advertising than it does to real political, social, cultural or legal change. Using "social marketing" techniques, therefore, we seek to change the views of our local populace concerning mental illness, still hoping to bring about a real change in society. But, as we argue about what strategy to adopt in attempting to get our message across, are we missing the point? Would we do better trying to change legislation, or lobbying for better social care and mental health services? An approach referred to by one of my colleagues as "the iron fist in the velvet glove."

But, perhaps, mental illness is different from other rights movements, as it appears to inherently lack the sexiness or cool of those particular political campaigns. Our ideas have yet to be swallowed and spewed back to us by the corporate world. Indeed, just how would you go about "marketing madness" in a society which views it so negatively? If there were money in it, it would have already been done. I still go to McDonald's to buy a "Big Mac", not a "Big Mad". So, in the end, as our movement against stigma still seems to be in its infancy, all we can do is continue to attempt to erode that stigma in any way we can.

However, although the days of "mad chic" have yet to come to pass, one wonders how long it will be before the same process which Klein describes happens to our fledgling movement? If anti-stigma campaigns actually took off and were assessed as actually having a concrete effect on society, would the corporations even hesitate in marketing madness themselves? Indeed, as the list of celebrity sufferers grows, I wonder just how many Stephen Frys, Charlie Sheens, Catherine Zeta-Joneses and Patsy Palmers it will take to spark the eventual interest of the corporate machine?

Meanwhile, we at the Media Action Group are already in the process of attempting to market madness; to "re-brand" it, as it were. In some kind of strange loop, we now borrow from the marketing world in an attempt to "sell" our beliefs to the public, much in the same way as the advertisers and corporations appropriated ideas for the content of their marketing tools from real political movements to sell their products. In this world of representations we hope to occupy a small, but important space in your consciousness. We hope you're taking notice. Maybe you're not. One thing is certain, though, and that is, when the big corporations start reflecting that new mental space, when our movement is big enough to make a buck out of, that's when we'll really know, in this strange, inverted, post-modern world, we've made an impact.

The Human Library.

2011-07-04T09:58:00.000-07:00

"Madness became pure spectacle...which was offered as a diversion to the good conscience of a reason sure of itself...Until the beginning of the nineteenth century...madmen remained monsters- that is, etymologically, beings or things to be shown."

Michel Foucault, "Madness and Civilisation".

The most recent initiative from the national "Time to Change" campaign, aimed at dismantling the stigma which surrounds mental illness, is called "It's time to talk". The brains behind the campaign think that talking openly about mental health is, to quote from their "Update" magazine, "one of the best ways to improve knowledge, attitudes and behaviour." One of the aspects of their new initiative has been the opening of various "human libraries" around the country, where people with no experience of mental illness can meet those who have had experience and, hopefully, therefore, "see beyond the label and meet the individual behind it." The events take place in informal settings, where people with mental illness volunteer as "human books" which the public can "borrow" to hear their personal stories.
I have been, at one time or another, either impressed by the "Time to Change" campaign or left cold by it. I was quite impressed, for example, with their viral films which broached the subject of schizophrenia and its stigmatising connection to violence. I was less enamoured, however, with the TV adverts that the campaign has produced, which seemed to me to be either too negative or just not clear in their meaning.
So, as I read through the article in their magazine about the "human library" events, I began to wonder exactly how I would feel if I were taking part in such an activity, perhaps as one of the "human books".
For a start, I think, I would feel as if I were being "put on display" for an audience of what the sociologist Irving Goffman called, "normals". I'm not exactly saying that the "human library" comes over like some kind of freak show, where members of the public come to gawp at "those mental people", but to me it does have an air of the slightly exploitative about it.
As if to confirm my initial feelings, one "human book" remarked that he had taken part in "the human library" enterprise and was bolstered by one student's remarks that he was, actually, "quite human." Well, excuse me for disagreeing about how this should have made him feel. To me, that is a somewhat ill-informed remark. If you don't know that those who have experience of mental illness are human, what does that say about you? And to actually say to someone, oh, you're really quite human, whereas before I must have thought of you as a three-legged, one-eyed alien is not all that encouraging to me.
One of the TTC campaign's stated aims is to target so-called "subconscious" stigmatizers, who inadvertently discriminate against those with mental illness. But could it be that in this case the Time to Change campaigners have done a little subconscious stigmatising of their own, and unwittingly invoked the days of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when the mentally ill were displayed to the public? OK, so the cages and the bars are no longer there, and the setting in which the human library is staged is a welcoming and informal one. But, are the same thought processes, perhaps subconsciously, going on behind the welcoming facade?
To me, then, the "human library" and the response to it highlighted above only prove that stigma remains a problem; that those with experience of mental illness are still, to some degree, objectified and thought of as almost a different species of human. Strange, then, that this be called the "human" library, as it seems to reveal, or perhaps it is better to say, invoke, the "unhumanness" of those with experience of mental ill heath, and all that is inhumane about their treatment at the hands of those without.

The Itch in the Soul.

2011-06-23T20:30:00.000-07:00

When a person becomes or has been seriously ill, it is, perhaps, a normal response for the person in question to ask, "why me?" Before the intrusion of such things in our lives, we probably, most of us, go around thinking "it'll never happen to me." I can honestly say that I was the same. The thought that one day I may become what is, somewhat inhumanely, referred to as "a schizophrenic", could not have been further from my mind. I suppose the thought of "losing your mind", so to speak, sometimes goes through the brains of most people, being, as it is, perhaps one of our deepest, darkest fears. But, it would appear, many of us dismiss the idea and we are unable to identify ourselves as ever being "one of them". Thus spring up all the old stereotypes of madness, perhaps the embodiment of our fears, the psychological projection of what secretly haunts us.
But, to return to the original question of "why me?", I suppose it is one almost ubiquitously asked by those who have suffered any, not just mental, severe illness. And, it seems, one can launch out on countless lines of philosophical speculation in attempting to answer this question.
Speaking for myself, I have often wondered why I got ill when others didn't. Was it just my fate? Was it just, as psychiatry would have us believe, a simple matter of a chemical imbalance in the brain? Was somebody "up there" trying to tell me something? Was I being punished for something? And if so, for what and by whom? God? I probably asked all of these questions upon first experiencing mental illness. Later, I have come to ask the similar, related question, "why did I get well when others don't?" Again, has it simply been my fate? Have I been suitably punished and finally atoned? Or, again, was it simply a matter of chemicals, in the form of medication, working on my unhinged brain?
At one point I came to think that there was something, just something which had helped me through it all. As if some hidden hand had guided my path and decided it was not my fate to remain deluded and unwell. Call it chemicals. Call it God. I thought that something ineffable had taken place which had resulted in what appeared to me to be bordering on the miraculous.
And then it struck me that this is perhaps what all of us do when trying to answer some of the above questions. It is as if our minds reach out to somehow try to impose order on what can only be described as chaos. To seek meaning where there might, perhaps, be none. It is as if we have an itch in the soul, forever wanting to be scratched.
I once attended a talk by the psychologist and author Dorothy Rowe in which she broached some of these issues. Although I cannot recall all of what was said, her stance seemed to be that, eventually, we have to accept that some things just happen to us, and there may be no rhyme or reason to it. The universe is perhaps a capricious and, even, meaningless place, where, to put it bluntly, shit happens. To me, this is, now, enough of an answer. And I am happy with it, or perhaps even because of it. I was not being punished by some omnipresent and omnipotent force. I was not a mere puppet dancing at the end of the strings of fate. No, I just got ill, then I got better. Shit happens. To be free of my previous probing is liberating to me, and although mine and Rowe's conclusions may seem to lack profundity, they have enough meaning for me to give me a modicum of happiness.
So, it seems, most of us will continue to put our faith in...something. Whether it be God, or medicine, or if you're like me, just the vagaries of chaos. But, it could also be said that it is the searching itself that's the point- that itch in the soul, which, as Philip Larkin put it, continues to send "the priest and the doctor/ In their long coats/ Running over the fields."

Dave's Progress. Chapter 127: The Final Chapter.

2011-06-16T23:44:00.000-07:00

So, after 126 chapters, this being the 127th, I have decided to call an end to entitling my posts "Dave's Progress". As the last chapter was a particularly positive one, suggesting that, if not entirely recovered, many of us at the Pathways Group are well into the process of recovery, I have made up my mind that this might be an appropriate place to end calling my posts by that particular name.
Indeed, anyway, "recovery" to many is an ongoing process, not with any solid end goal. As many of us in the group have chronic conditions (i.e. they are treatable, but not curable), the suggestion that any of us are totally "recovered", including myself, is perhaps to misconstrue the concept of recovery. So, as an alcoholic might call themselves "a recovering alcoholic", so it is with us.
Having said this, there are aims to the recovery process, such as being able to live a fulfilling and meaningful existence even without the complete abatement of symptoms, and also finding an identity beyond the strictures simply of illness. I have remarked before how many come to identify themselves entirely with their condition, giving it so-called "master status", often describing themselves as "a schizophrenic" or "a manic depressive". The process of recovery, in part, is about getting beyond such labelling and claiming (or perhaps reclaiming) an identity outside the boundaries imposed by such definitions.
Many topics have been covered over my 126 chapters, many to do with the stigma surrounding mental illness, many about my own experience, and also a few on my thoughts on the treatment of mental ill health. There have also been some which have nothing to do with mental health at all, and which I hope have proved that there is more to me, and indeed to anyone, than just my or their diagnosis. And, I do hope that, in some way, the chapters reflect an ongoing "progress". After reading over some earlier posts, I do find that they reflect the fact that I was once quite angry about my own treatment and very bothered by stigma. I hope that more recent posts reflect that I have managed to resolve such negative feelings, and have come to be a lot more happy and contented than I once was. Hopefully such "progress" will inspire others to see that no matter how bad things are or appear to be at present, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
So, this is the end of "Dave's Progress", and I am definitely going out on a high. Whereas once life didn't seem to be worth living, it now appears to me to be a great, rip-roaring adventure, one which I seem to appreciate all the more because I have experienced such lows. So, as I venture into pastures new, perhaps you'd like to join me for the ride, for although this is the end of "Dave's progress", it certainly isn't the end of this blog. And, although, no doubt, mental health and the issues surrounding it will remain my main subject, I'm sure there will be something I can think of which reflects the fact that my identity is no longer bound up entirely with mental ill health. In the words of Bette Davis then, "fasten your seat belts, this could be a bumpy ride".

Dave's Progress. Chapter 126: Feels Like We Might Have Made It.

2011-06-09T04:10:00.000-07:00

After visiting the Pathways Group on Tuesday, I was somewhat overcome with a great feeling of positivity and hope for the future. Our little group, set up for those who have had some experience of psychosis, has now been running for around four years, and although there have been sad times, with the unfortunate loss of two of our members, the group has remained a steadfast resource for, I believe, all of us who take part in it. I almost cannot get over the continuing positive "vibes" which emanate from our little gathering, and indeed, it seems we have achieved quite a bit since its inception, including making a short film which was screened at our local museum, and recently developing our own website (see link below).
The group, then, is not what you might expect from one designed to help those with perhaps the most severe and enduring of mental health conditions. Indeed, we seem to be forever having our confidence boosted by the staff who facilitate the group by them telling us how "dynamic" we are, and that the group represents, to many, a beacon of hope as to what can be achieved even with such diagnoses.
At the group on Tuesday one member spoke of how it has served to increase his confidence, and we remembered how when he first came he hardly spoke at all. It seemed, however, on this day there was no stopping him. Ideas poured forth about how we could further develop the group, and with him being quite skilled at using computers (unlike my somewhat Luddite self) he suggested that we now go further with our foray into cyberspace and announce our presence on "Twitter".
Perhaps more importantly, though, he spoke of how the group has helped him come to terms with his illness and how he has managed to overcome the vagaries of bi-polar, suggesting that now, being a little older, he has lost many of the neuroses which plagued him. It is as if all of us have grown up together with the group.
Indeed, for myself I can decidedly say that I feel, after many years of illness, almost like a "new" person. Or, perhaps, it would be more appropriate to say I am beginning to feel almost like the person I was before schizophrenia interrupted my life, only older, wiser and with better coping strategies. I have sometimes spoken in this blog of how I felt I had lost part of myself through my illness, as if my emotional life had virtually shut down. It seems now that it is back. I have many new friends and feel contented with that.
To end on a final warm and fuzzy note, when I was about to leave the Bennett Centre (where our group is held) on Tuesday, one member of staff came up to me, said "Hello, David" and took my hand and shook it. With this simple little gesture, he made me feel like a respected individual. Long gone are the days of me and staff members being seemingly at each others' throats, and I might say that I feel so welcome at the centre that it almost feels as if I am a member of staff. Indeed, it is often remarked by some of the student nurses who sometimes come to our group that you can't tell the difference between the service users and the facilitators. In this case, it seems, the loonies may well and truly have taken over the asylum.
It can sometimes take years to overcome illnesses of the like we in the group have had, but all that I have mentioned above gives me an overwhelming feeling that, finally, we might have made it.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 125: Do Psychopaths Run the World?

2011-05-29T21:57:00.000-07:00

In a new book by the journalist Jon Ronson, entitled "The Psychopath Test", the author goes on an odyssey through the "madness industry". Through various leads, he discovers a psychiatrist who believes that many leading CEOs and politicians may be psychopaths. So, he then goes on a journey through the corridors of power, seeking proof for this thesis.
Psychopathy, also referred to as anti-social personality disorder, is perhaps the most derided and feared of mental health diagnoses. In this case, though, it has to be said, perhaps with good reason. People who have this condition are said to lack conscience over their actions, are emotionally shallow and glib, have a tendency to lie, and can be violent. The thought, then, that such people might actually be governing our world in some capacity is a scary one.
However, is it really that surprising? To my mind, "our world", as it were, particularly in the West of advanced capitalism, is perhaps entirely suited to the mindset of the psychopath. In a world of the survival of the fittest, indeed, of a sort of social Darwinism, and also media shallowness, is it any surprise that those who are able to lie, manipulate, are excessively risk-taking, lack empathy, emotion and conscience, rise to the top of the pile?
Indeed, with the coming of Thatcherism and Reaganomics in the 1980s, and the ruthless hedonism which, to many, that represented, I believe society became just that little bit nastier. This was reflected in many artistic works of the time, which appeared to link this new ethos to psychopathy. Works such as Brett Easton Ellis's "American Psycho", Peter Greenaway's "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" and Mike Leigh's "Naked", all had characters who displayed, despite being well-off, an astonishing cultural and moral vacuity and tendencies to violence. The main character in "American Psycho", for example, whilst maintaining a high-flying job in finance, also happened to be a serial killing, misogynistic psychopath with shallow tastes and emotions. You could say he was the ultimate hollow man for the ultimate hollow decade.

Poster for the film of Brett Easton Ellis's "American Psycho", starring Christian Bale as the high-flying psychopath Patrick Bateman.

But, such satire aside, are there examples of such behaviour in real life? Well, I can recall only too well the Conservative MP Jonathan Aitken's remarks that he would fight allegations made against him "with the simple sword of truth". As it turned out, Mr. Aitken was lying through his teeth and then served time in prison for his indiscretions. The politician's ability to lie without compunction is one sign of psychopathy. Perhaps, also, our recent economic collapse could be put down to excessive risk-taking on behalf of the bankers, risky and reckless behaviour also being a sign of psychopathy. And one only has to watch an episode of "The Apprentice" to find your fair share of bullies, egotists and ruthless manipulators.

So, "socialised" psychopathy may have become the condition of normality in "our world". Which sort of begs the question- isn't it time to reassess what we feel is "normal". Only in my last post I wrote of how some regard schizophrenia as an entirely "normal" response to trauma. And yet, those with the disorder remain socially excluded, feared, vilified and stigmatized, while those who are decidedly anti-social could be amongst the most powerful among us.
Anyway, just as a bit of fun, below are 18 questions which are supposed to reveal whether you or someone you know is a "socialised" psychopath. If you answer "yes" to many of these questions, the person in question may have psychopathic tendencies. The questions are as follows:
1. Do they have problems sustaining stable relationships, personally and in business?
2. Do they frequently manipulate others to achieve selfish goals, with no consideration of the effects on those manipulated?
3. Are they cavalier about the truth, and capable of telling lies to your face?
4. Do they have an air of self-importance, regardless of their true standing in society?
5. Have they no apparent sense of remorse, shame or guilt?
6. Is their charm superficial, and capable of being switched on to suit immediate ends?
7. Are they easily bored and demand constant stimulation?
8. Are their displays of human emotion unconvincing?
9. Do they enjoy taking risks, and acting on reckless impulse?
10. Are they quick to blame others for their mistakes?
11. As teenagers, did they resent authority, play truant and/or steal?
12. Do they have no qualms about sponging off others?
13. Are they quick to lose their temper?
14. Are they sexually promiscuous?
15. Do they have a belligerent, bullying manner?
16. Are they unrealistic about their long-term aims?
17. Do they lack any ability to empathise with others?
18. Would you regard them as essentially irresponsible?
Recognise anyone? Take care, now.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 124: Does Schizophrenia Really Exist?

2011-05-28T04:07:00.000-07:00

" Is it that an organic brain condition known as schizophrenia exists? Personally, I doubt it."

Paul Hammersley.

On Thursday, we at the Pathways Group were visited by CBT counsellor and leading light of the CASL (Campaign for the Abolition of the Schizophrenia Label) campaign, Paul Hammersley. Throughout his talk, Paul shared his views on the causes of psychosis, particularly how it is linked to the experiences of trauma and dissociation.

Paul explained that, in his view, one cannot speak of psychosis without understanding "dissociation". So, what exactly is "dissociation"? Well, as far as I understood it, dissociation occurs when one is trapped in some sort of traumatic situation. When we are caught in a dangerous or stressful predicament from which we cannot escape, the body's in-built defense mechanism is to literally just shut down. The brain will stop working as normal when there is no possibility of the body's usual response of fight or flight. So, imagine, for example, that you are stuck in a car wreck. You are unable to move and death seems imminent. In this situation you may begin to dissociate, i.e. the brain will shut down and you will, for want of a better phrase, sort of "zone out". Or, imagine you are a child on the receiving end of physical abuse. You cannot escape your attacker nor can you fight back, the result being that you begin to dissociate to avoid the imminent pain (emotional as well as physical).

Paul stressed that dissociation is not an illness, but rather a normal response to such situations. Indeed, he showed us a "spectrum" of dissociation, ranging from the normal to the experience of dissociative disorders, such as dissociative identity disorder (DID), previously known as multiple personality disorder. Indeed, Paul suggested that dissociation is such a normal response, it even occurs amongst animals. We all are familiar with the image of a rabbit seemingly "trapped" by car headlights. Paul pointed out that the rabbit, when in this situation, is probably dissociating. So, dissociation is a normal, animal, defensive response to extremely dangerous or stressful situations.

Paul then went on to explain how such dissociation is linked to later experiences of psychosis, suggesting that it is some form of trauma which causes a person to have psychotic experiences in their life. Unfortunately, I do not recall all of what Paul said here, but the main thrust of it was that when trauma happens we become dissociative, and that this dissociative response mirrors many of the "symptoms" of psychosis. For example, if I remember correctly, Paul stated that when we begin to dissociate our consciousness becomes fractured. So, things like memory, our sense of self, our senses and such begin to operate in a non-integrated way. Paul cleverly tied this in to the experience of psychosis, suggesting that the same things can happen with that disorder. For example, a non-integrated sensory experience might emerge as a hallucination of some kind.

A lot of what Paul was saying to us, then, was quite controversial. Viewing trauma as perhaps the major cause of psychotic experiences and, therefore, the diagnosis of schizophrenia, is not the current orthodoxy. Many still see schizophrenia as an organic condition caused by certain chemical imbalances in the brain, a theory which is endorsed by the pharmacological industry, because their drugs are designed to combat such chemical imbalances. Paul's views would obviously, then, upset this current way of thinking and, indeed, it seems that some who share his views are unpopular within the psychiatric field, even to the point of having difficulty publishing their work. But this didn't stop Paul from saying, as I quoted above, that the existence of schizophrenia as an organic brain condition is, to his mind, doubtful.

Paul gave one devastating statistic to back up his claim that trauma is the major (although it must be said not exclusive) cause of psychotic illness. Apparently, in the Amish community, which has very low levels of stress, rates of schizophrenic illness run at 0.3% of the population. In war-torn Somalia, where levels of stress and danger are obviously very high, schizophrenia affects 33% of the population. The much bandied about statistic of rates of schizophrenia running at 1% of the population across the board (and which I have often quoted in this blog) then seems to be entirely false, and the notion that trauma has everything to do with the inducement of psychosis rather than any chemical imbalance is made more solid by such statistics.

So, it was controversy at Thursday's Pathways Group. I must point out finally, though, that Paul stressed that he is not "anti-psychiatry", and although he questions the validity of the diagnosis of schizophrenia, he would not have us all throw down our medication and simply follow him. All Paul seems to want is for people to remain open-minded, to accept that there is more than one way of looking at things. I think that he, and the CASL campaign, deserve that at the very least.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 123: Hostile Intent.

2011-05-19T07:02:00.000-07:00

" Don't hate nothing at all except hatred."

Bob Dylan

In a recent article in "The Observer" newspaper, it was claimed that disabled people are facing greater levels of hostility from strangers, largely since David Cameron's government launched its controversial benefits reforms. Victims of this increased hostility are tending to blame the notion that people with disabilities who are unable to work because of them are, basically, scroungers. A notion which has been veritably fed and created by our present oh so caring incumbents.
The statistics which back up the paper's claims come from a survey done by the the charity for the disabled, Scope, which suggested that "a majority" of disabled people were facing hostility, discrimination and even physical attacks from strangers every week. One man, who suffers from cerebral palsy, said that he was accosted by a woman when trying to park in a disabled parking bay. She demanded to know what was wrong with him and, in the end, he had to show her his walking sticks to dissuade her from the belief that he "didn't look disabled".
Admittedly, the survey focused on those with physical disabilities, but, if this is the sort of thing which they are having to face, one can only wonder at the effect the government's propaganda is having on those with mental health conditions. As many mental illnesses are not highly visible, one can only guess that such hostility may come to be faced by many with mental health diagnoses.
Indeed, in my own locality of Stoke-on-Trent, one only has to listen to some opinions given over the airwaves of our local BBC radio station to understand just how intolerant we have become to the more vulnerable in society. On a phone-in about child poverty, which a recent survey suggested now affects one in four children in Stoke, many refused to believe that such poverty even existed. "Africa. The Third World. Now that's real poverty", seemed to be the overwhelming response. Many also blamed the parents of the children for buying unnecessary luxuries and neglecting their offspring. It took someone from the charity Gingerbread to begin to talk sense, with him suggesting that levels of benefits in this country are actually lower than almost all our European counterparts, that levels of pay tend to be lower in this country as well and also that levels of unemployment, particularly in Stoke, are currently extremely high, with the number of available jobs dwindling. But no. It seemed all the public wanted to do was lay the blame at the feet of some of the most vulnerable people who live in our increasingly intolerant nation. No one, it seemed, wanted to lay at least some of the fault at the door of our economic leadership.
So, it seems, the Tories have managed to do it again. I remember during the Thatcher era the vehemence with which people like single mothers and even students were attacked for supposedly wasting tax pounds. Now, it appears, we have reached new lows, with the disabled becoming the newly demonised minority.
So, next time you see someone who you just suspect may be scrounging off the system, even though they may be in a wheel chair, why not just give them a good, sound kick in the balls, just for good measure. Failing that, report them to the DWP. Or you can ring your local radio station, and spew your hatred out to all those listeners who are sure to agree with you. Only thing is, I won't be listening. I'll be silently hoping that your hostile intentions soon get redirected to where they should be vented. Because, in the words of Bob Dylan, I don't hate nothing at all except hatred.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 122: A Tale of Two Cities.

2011-05-14T23:44:00.000-07:00

And so it came. The big day. May 14th, 2011. There were two teams. There was one football. But was there, ladies and gentlemen, a level playing field?
I am, of course, talking about yesterday's F.A. Cup final between Stoke City and Manchester City. Pre-match hype in Stoke reached such a fever pitch yesterday that the entire day's airtime on our local radio station was dedicated to coverage of the game. And, when the game began, Stoke itself seemed to transform into a ghost town. Only the pubs and bars which showed the game on television were filled with ardent supporters. The rest of the town was deserted, with people either being actually at Wembley to watch the game or at home watching on their TVs. The night before, most of our local news coverage (TV, radio and print media) had been about the match, with many local luminaries turning up to extol the virtues of both the football team and our city. "How great this will be not just for football in Stoke but for Stoke itself", seemed to be the general response. Many felt that the game would finally put Stoke on the map, bringing much needed inward investment to the area.
So, as the starting whistle blew, the majority of Stokies sat rapt in eager anticipation, salivating over the possibility of us bringing home the cup for the first time in the club's 148 year history.
Then, of course, things began to go wrong. Stoke seemed to lack the previous vigour in their play which had brought them a 5-0 victory in the semi-final. It has to be said that they looked out-classed by the superior movement and on-the-ball skills of Manchester. And, in the second half, Stoke's worst fears were finally realised as Manchester scored. Stoke seemed to rally late in the game and had two corners in the final minute, but to no avail. Manchester came away the victors with the only goal of the game.
Then, as harsh reality began to sink in, the disappointment of the Stoke players, manager Tony Pulis, their many fans (27,000 had travelled to Wembley to see the game) and indeed, the inhabitants of our much maligned city, became palpable. Stoke had lost. At the semi-finals grown men had cried with joy, now it was with utter sorrow and desolation.
But, when one begins to think about it, was Manchester's victory such a surprise? They had been favourites to win from the outset, and when I suggested at the beginning of this post that the game may not have been a meeting of equals, I think one can make the argument that Stoke were doomed before the whistle even blew. And why is this? The simple answer lies in one word- money. It could be said that Manchester City essentially bought themselves this victory. With new owners with a reputed fortune of £15 billion, Manchester can easily afford to buy and pay the very best players around. Indeed, I believe their highest paid player earns the disgustingly obscene amount of £220,000 a week. Compare this to Stoke, whose owner has a relatively modest (in footballing terms) fortune of £500 million.
Despite this, though, Stoke have ended up eighth in the Premiere League, which qualifies them to play in Europe next season. And, at the end of the day, they did reach the final of the F.A. Cup even though they didn't win. So, hopefully, Stoke City F.C. and Stoke-on-Trent itself can retain some pride in the achievements of the club and perhaps an invigorated sense of pride in our locality has indeed come to pass. It's just a shame that in football as in life, and as we know all too well in Stoke, there's rarely such a thing as a level playing field.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 121: All Power to You.

2011-05-07T02:13:00.000-07:00

Recently, at the Media Action Group for Mental Health, where I do my voluntary work, we have been trying to define exactly what the purpose of our organization is and what it should be doing to reduce the stigma surrounding mental illness. As a small, local charity, perhaps we sometimes feel overwhelmed by how big the problem of stigma is and are, therefore, concerned that we tackle areas in which we feel that we can actually bring about some change. We have started this process, then, by asking ourselves three questions- what is stigma? what impact does stigma have on people with mental illness? and finally, if stigma were removed, what would the benefits be?
So, as I wrote my own little piece on these questions, I began to wonder about another, related subject. And that is the question of just why the movement to reduce the stigma around mental ill health seems to lack any significant political, social, economic or cultural power. Perhaps it does have some momentum and weight, but hardly on the same scale as that for the movements for racial or female equality, or gay rights.
After all, it is not as if mental illness is some rare phenomenon, only affecting a few people. If the often quoted statistic is correct, then one in four people will be affected by mental illness, in some way, during the course of their lives. Rates of those experiencing anxiety and depression seem to be going through the roof, and more serious illnesses, like schizophrenia, are said to affect at least 1% of the population. 1% may not sound like much, but coupled with the overall figures, the sheer numbers would seem to provide for a movement with significant impact. So why is it that when, for example, I asked a visiting journalist from our local newspaper to explain why he had written a certain headline which I found derogatory to people with mental ill health, his response was to simply say that I was reducing the argument to "semantics" and that, anyway, "your average person in the street couldn't care less about mental illness"? I should have pointed out to him that sometimes our argument is all about "semantics" and the language people use to describe mental illness or those experiencing it and that with one in four people being, in some way, affected by mental illness, if they're not bothered about it, then they should be. Unfortunately, as is so often in life, I only thought of this devastating response after our meeting!
So, why is it that when it comes to mental illness most people "couldn't care less" unless they are directly affected? We all, for instance, have to obey certain rules of conduct and take care with the language we use in terms of race, gender and homosexuality or else risk alienating ourselves from mainstream thought and models of behaviour. Why is this different for mental illness?
Well, it seems to me that while the ideologies which fed racism, sexism or homophobia are decidedly on the wane, the ones feeding the stigma around mental illness are still very much alive. One only has to look at portrayals of mental illness in the media or in film and literature to know this. So, there appears to be a very real social feeling that it is OK to laugh at, sneer, or induce fear about, mental illness. Levels of factually correct knowledge about mental ill health seem very low aswell, which perhaps feeds negative attitudes and discriminatory behaviour.
It seems, then, that many with mental illness are trapped in a vicious circle, kept in a certain social and cultural position by stigma. Similarly, in terms of our economic or political clout, stigma appears to keep us at a certain level. Many still feel that those who govern should not be allowed to if they have had a mental illness, despite figures such as Winston Churchill now being known to have suffered from depression for much of his life. Indeed, when a statue of Churchill wearing a straight-jacket was unveiled some years ago, obviously to make a point about stigma and mental illness, it was regarded by some as an insult to his memory. Many of those in high or "professional" jobs seem loath to disclose histories of mental illness for fear of reprisals. In terms of our economic power, it is the case that 70% of those with experience of psychotic illness remain poor and unemployed, so how can we ever hope to make an impact in the way that the gay rights movement did with the power of "the pink pound".
So, politically, economically, socially and culturally, the mental health movement would seem to lack momentum, and the only way to combat this would seem to be to continue to attempt to erode stigma in whatever ways we can. One can only hope that more of those experiencing mental ill health, particularly those in powerful positions, will speak out about their illnesses and some sort of tipping point will be reached. One understands that disclosure of this sort is fraught with difficulties because of stigma, but only by speaking out can stigma be reduced. To those who do decide to do this, then, I wish all power to you.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 120: The Worst Film...Ever.

2011-04-25T21:27:00.000-07:00

Movies, as some of you will know, are one of my abiding interests, and I have sometimes told of the movies I like, such as "The Third Man", "The Godfather (part 1 & 2)", "Apocalypse Now", "Raging Bull", "The Searchers", "Taxi Driver", "Le Fue Follet" and "Le Mepris". These films are, probably without exception, regarded as "good", if not "great" cinema. So, I thought, as I have nothing else to write about, why not, for once, go to the other end of the scale and look at movies which are regarded as being perhaps the worst...ever.
It appears that one cannot do this without running into the figure of Ed Wood. Making films during the 1950s, Wood was a notoriously bad director and was responsible for such unbelievably laughable films as "Glen or Glenda" and "Plan 9 From Outer Space". Wood actually teamed up, also somewhat unbelievably, with the Hungarian actor Bela Lugosi, famous, of course, for previously playing Count Dracula. Wood apparently idolised Lugosi and he made his final appearance as an actor in Wood's "Plan 9...". Unfortunately, Lugosi died before shooting ended, so Wood replaced him with another actor who also happened to be his wife's chiropractor, but in the final film left in the previous footage of Lugosi. So, as one watches, it is obvious that two different people are playing the same character, being different in size, build, and even hair. While Lugosi retained a full head of hair until his death, the actor replacing him was almost bald.
However, such ineptitude does not, perhaps, inspire one's contempt, but rather, endearing laughter. Indeed, many seem to find Wood's films "so bad, they're good". One critic even remarked that "Plan 9..." was "far too entertaining to be considered the very worst film ever made", while another has stated that the film is "the ultimate cult flick".
Also, with "Glen or Glenda", a semi-autobiographical quasi-documentary about transvestism, some critics have sought to defend Wood's film-making, one saying that this movie, starring and directed by Wood, was, despite its ineptitude, a far more personal account than that given by many so-called auteurs.

Poster for Ed Wood's "Glen or Glenda".

So, for the truly contemptible, it seems one would have to look elsewhere. Indeed, Wood was even the subject of a biopic made by the "good" director Tim Burton, which was a rather endearing look at the director, his life, career and relationship with Lugosi. What comes over in the film is Wood's absolute enthusiasm for film and, despite being totally inept, his ultimate charm and goodness as a man. And, who could forget the line when Wood goes to see a premiere of his movie "Plan 9...": "I think this may be my masterpiece. The one everyone will remember me for". And, indeed, we do.
Perhaps, then, that which is regarded as being truly awful by some turns out to be not that bad in the end, probably reflecting the essential subjectivity of all criticism. Indeed, it seems that we would all have our favourite "bad film". Personally, I can't stand the modern horror genre's foray into so-called "torture porn", which appears to me to be just an excuse to portray needlessly gruesome and gratuitous violence. When seeing such things, one is reminded of Michael Haneke's movie "Funny Games", in which the director seems to veritably turn the lens on to the audience and ask the question, "why, exactly, are you watching this?"
So, how about John Travolta's "Battlefield Earth" as a candidate for "the worst film...ever". Or, perhaps, Paul Verhoeven's truly execrable "Showgirls". Whatever your taste, I'm sure you can find at least one movie which makes Ed Wood look like Jean-Luc Godard.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 119: An Inspiring Victory.

2011-04-18T03:06:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Stoke City Football Club played against Bolton in the semi-final of the F.A. Cup. And, wait for it, ladies and gentlemen... they won. Not only that, they won emphatically. The final score was 5-0 in favour of Stoke. This will mean that for the first time in the club's 148 year history, they will be appearing in the final of the F.A. Cup at Wembley Stadium in London in around a month's time, when they will play against Manchester City.
The success of Stoke City has seemingly had a far-reaching effect. Not only are fans of the club beside themselves with joy (we were told by our local radio station that grown men actually cried after seeing the game), but it has given a whole uplift to the city in which I live. Even as a fan of Port Vale (a local, rival team), I myself can not help but be pleased by this inspiring victory.
As one of the most socially and economically deprived areas of the country, living in Stoke-on-Trent can sometimes be, how can I say it, depressing. With high levels of unemployment, illness and things like fuel poverty, it has to be said that Stoke is not always the most pleasant place to live. Talking of aesthetics alone, it is obvious that, in many areas, Stoke is urgently in need of repair. Even some of the attempts at regeneration in the city have been deemed failures. And, if one has been away from the area, then pulling in to Stoke station one is immediately hit by just how unkempt and deprived the city has become. Looking out at the once heaving industrial mass, one is hit by the greyness and the poverty which seems to veritably leak from the pores of the city. Even the city folk, often praised for their kindness and friendliness, appear to have developed a nastier side, and I doubt that anyone over the age of 25 would dare set foot in our city centre on a Friday or Saturday night for fear of some sort of explosion of drunken violence.
So, when I say that Stoke needs something good to happen to it, I am perhaps understating the whole thing. And Stoke's victory yesterday was perhaps more than just a football game, in that it has given a boost to our ailing city. The fact that grown men cried at such an event was indicative to me of a somewhat forgotten pride and loyalty, not only to a football team, but to our entire area. Even though we sometimes criticise the area ourselves, it seems we still, deep down, have a love and affection for it, which makes its economic and social collapse upsetting to see.
So, here's to Stoke City and to Stoke-on-Trent, our city. So often failing, so often belittled, but now riding high on the back of this inspiring victory.
And, speaking of "inspiration", my good friend klahanie, aka Gary, has awarded me, together with nine other bloggers, the "you are an inspiration" award. So, I thank him for that and for thinking of me as an "inspiring" blogger. I can only hope that, in a small way, my blog has helped dismantle some of the appalling stigma which surrounds mental illness, a goal which I know is also close to Gary's heart.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 118: Real Men don't get Depression.

2011-04-13T03:04:00.000-07:00

A short while ago, ex-England and Yorkshire cricketer Geoff Boycott criticised the England all-rounder Michael Yardy for flying home from Sri Lanka as a result of depression. Boycott, the 108-Test veteran, is reported to have said: "He must have been reading my comments about his bowling. That must have upset him as it's obviously too much for him. He's not good enough at this level." When told that Yardy had quit due to illness, not loss of form, Boycott went on to remark: "I've always got picked, played good, so I've not been in the position where my quality of play has been poor and it's got to me mind-wise."
Various mental health charities were, understandably, outraged by Boycott's remarks and Sane's Marjorie Wallace said: "It is wrong and old-fashioned to regard depression as a form of weakness, or a disguise for a lack of achievement. It takes courage to speak out as Michael has done."
Indeed, Boycott's remarks, however ignorant and unpleasant, do seem indicative of a general feeling that some forms of mental illness, particularly depression, are signs of weakness or failure. I remember when I was first ill and friends seemed to see my burgeoning illness in this way, as a sign of apparent failure, and one even remarked that I had become, to use his words, "a real loser". Later, another "friend" seemed to use my apparent downfall as a way of asserting himself, saying that he "could cope with pressure", while I, obviously, could not.
This sort of misunderstanding would appear to be most prevalent among men, and is possibly even worse within the competitive environment of sport. The overall cultural expectation that men should be strong, not just physically, but emotionally too, perhaps adds to the already existing burden of being depressed. So, instead of feeling that one is simply ill, this often gets confused with feelings of failure, incompetence or weakness. And, of course, remarks like those made by Mr.Boycott do not help.
Later, admittedly, Boycott appeared to make a retraction of sorts, saying that, "until you've had depression, I don't think you're qualified to talk about it." So, perhaps Geoff should follow his own advice and just be quiet about the whole thing.
However, this still doesn't take away our cultural notions of masculinity and what it means to be a man. One would have thought that post-feminism, us males would finally accept our emotional, more sensitive sides, but it still appears that we are much less likely to ask for help when illnesses like depression strike, and perhaps this is born of the fear of being perceived as some kind of failure. In fact, you could almost say that, in our culture, it is still the case that "real men don't get depression".
As for myself, I feel I've had to re-evaluate all such notions of being strong and competitive, and ironically I feel it was only when I put aside such notions and was no longer bothered by them that I perhaps retrieved some of my previous ability to cope. But, I do know what it is like to be on the receiving end of comments like Boycott's and, to me, they only compound feelings of inadequacy that sometimes illnesses like depression can engender.
So, perhaps the "real man" in this case was, in fact, Michael Yardy himself, who remarked, upon flying back home from Sri Lanka, that: "I felt it was the only sensible option and I wanted to be honest about the reason". Perhaps he is the one who has shown the real courage in this situation, ultimately revealing Boycott's sneering machismo for what it was.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 117: Scrounging, Work-Shy Loafers?

2011-04-06T03:59:00.000-07:00

If there's one thing that tends to rouse my indignation it's when those experiencing mental ill health (or, for that matter, any other form of illness) come to be regarded, because they have to claim benefits to survive, as lazy, or work-shy, or just plain scroungers.
Recently, in our local paper, "The Sentinel", the journalist Martin Tideswell wrote an article entitled "Means-testing will sort genuine claimants from work-shy loafers". The article gave an example of one genuine case (a man suffering from motor neurone disease), but then went on to say that new measures being brought in by the government which will mean that everyone on incapacity benefit will be re-tested to assess their condition and whether they are fit to work will "force a few malingerers to get off their lazy backsides and earn a crust like the rest of us have to."
Tideswell pointed to the genuinely worrying statistic that 19.1% of working-age people in Stoke-on-Trent were receiving some form of out-of-work benefits, compared to 13.8% in the West Midlands and a more general 12% across England. While Tideswell did acknowledge that our city must be now one of the most deprived in the country, and that we "desperately need help in stimulating investment and job-creation", he stated that the figures also implied an "unpalatable truth", namely that "some people view claiming benefits as a career choice and ill-health as a way of life".
Personally, although I know that there must be a negligible few who abuse the system, the thought of anyone actively "choosing" to claim benefits is anathema to me. Indeed, if this is the case, then surely it comes from living in an environment or culture where you don't even expect to get a job. With unemployment in this country now at its highest for 17 years, and with our well-known economic woes, perhaps such statistics are not surprising. Indeed, I have already spoken in a previous blog of how such social and economic deprivation can actually lead to an increase in those experiencing mental ill health.
What really worries me about such attitudes, then, is that with certain illnesses, like depression, the immediate response of people is to assume that you are lazy or just work-shy. On the other hand, if you mention a diagnosis like schizophrenia, people assume that you are just plain crazy to the point that work might be impossible and, of course, worse, that you are violent and uncontrollable. The difference between how these diagnoses are viewed is indicative of just how much misunderstanding surrounds mental illness, and indeed, presents a problem for those re-assessing people on incapacity benefit, who themselves may be in no way immune to such prejudices. How does one go about assessing someone like myself, for example, who has been given perhaps the most severe mental health diagnosis and yet has a high level of functionality. Would I be assessed as capable of work, or would I just get put on the economic scrap-heap by virtue of my diagnosis alone? Indeed, such an "either/or" situation would not be satisfactory to me. While I do not want to feel that I am of no use at all, neither do I want to be forced into a work situation which may cause too much stress and therefore increase a possibility of relapse.
Indeed, perhaps Tideswell and his ilk are completely missing the point. Instead of looking to the most vulnerable in society as a place for placing some sort of blame, why not look to those who actually caused our recent economic downfall, i.e. the bankers, and go about trying to reform their behaviour. Instead what we have is a wholesale restructuring, and some would say, undermining, of the welfare state.
Let it also be said, that it has been statistically shown that those experiencing mental ill health have the highest levels of "willingness to work" amongst those who receive out-of-work benefits.
So, the next time someone tells you that some of us are just scrounging, work-shy loafers, please think again.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 116: Feeling Liberated.

2011-03-28T10:40:00.000-07:00

A while ago now, I wrote a blog about political correctness and the terms which are appropriate to use when speaking of mental illness or those with experience of it. It seems to me that this is an extremely vexed question and one which, perhaps, demands a little further exploration.
As I recall, I said in my blog that pejorative words used to describe mental illness were still used with a certain banal cruelty, seemingly bandied about with relative impunity in comparison to their racial or sexual counterparts. While this is perhaps true, I pointed out that there are people within mental health circles who advocate the use of words, such as "mad" in the case of "Mad Pride", which would at first seem unsuitable. The concept of "reclaiming" words and thereby defusing their power seems to be behind this particular approach.
Indeed, the more I look at words used to describe those who experience mental ill health, such as "loony", "nutter", "bonkers", "wacko", I have come to feel that they are, in some ways, harmless. This may outrage some who feel the use of such terms to be wholly inappropriate, but the more I have been involved with fighting the use of inappropriate language, the more I realise that these terms are, in fact, nothing to do with me. They do not describe, in any way, the illness or symptoms I have experienced. So, I can separate my own experience from such language, and have come to regard it, because it has "nothing to do with me", as almost harmless and even vaguely humorous. Indeed, there is one group of service users who actually revel in such terms and embrace them. They feel that words like "bonkers" are actually quite "cuddly", and imply a sort of harmless eccentricity, rather than any dark, scary malevolence. Moreover, these terms seem to be applied to those who have no experience of mental ill health, but are merely regarded as a a little strange or eccentric. In my own opinion, it is only the term "schizo" which I tend to find really offensive, as it does seem to convey a particularly virulent nastiness.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that the journey to liberation perhaps begins internally. It is how we respond to such name-calling that is the really important thing. For, no matter how hard we try, it is not as if we are going to eliminate all stigma and discrimination. And here, I suppose, I am contradicting myself again, having written previously that in order to change things one must engage with the world. I have to say that in my own experience, although my anti-stigma work has helped me confront many issues, it has been as much an internal journey as one to do with actually bringing about change in the world. Indeed, this would seem to tie in with notions about self-stigma. It is how we respond to such things which ultimately defines how "liberated" or "unliberated" we may feel.
Indeed, it seems to me that to feel truly free would be to somehow escape definition or categorisation. We are all, to some degree, put in to boxes and defined. To some this gives a sense of identity, to others a sense that they are somehow locked in to something they need to be liberated from. At one stage I even felt that my own name might be an unnecessary means of defining something which should remain nebulous- free from definition, therefore free to be anything.
So, if some see madness itself as liberating, it is also nice to be liberated from madness and the terms which are used to describe it. And, I feel , that is the point I am at now- feeling somewhat liberated from all of this, no longer defined by terms other than my own.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 115: Pathways Group Launches New Website.

2011-03-24T04:23:00.000-07:00

At a mental health fair in Stoke town centre last Friday, the Pathways Group officially launched its new website. The site is, if truth be told, in the early stages of its development, but we have managed to put up a couple of interesting articles, together with links to other sites, as well as a touching "farewell" to long-time member Cath, and an introductory brief biography of one of our members and resident photographer, Dom. There are also a number of pictures taken by Dom of the group up on the site.
Although the site needs some more work, we believe that already it is giving out a message of hope to others who have experienced long-tern mental illness which has involved symptoms of psychosis. Historically speaking, illnesses involving psychosis, particularly schizophrenia, have had quite poor prognoses. However, as everyone in our group seems to be doing so well, we wanted to show that such illnesses needn't be the "death sentence" they are sometimes considered to be, and that one can recover with the right support and interventions.
Me and another member of the group, Mark, have met with the press officer for North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare, who will be issuing a press release about the site, and we are hoping that it will be publicised in both our local paper, "The Sentinel", and on BBC Radio Stoke. Rather frighteningly, it will be Mark and I who will be going on the radio to give a live interview to publicise our intentions for the site.
So, as we all know by now, "psychosis" is a much misunderstood term (see my blog "psychosis vs. psychopathic- a common misunderstanding") and any accurate information we can get out about such illnesses will surely be a good thing, perhaps alleviating some of the stigma surrounding them. It has to be said, though, that fighting stigma, although part of our intention, is not our main aim for the site. This is reserved for providing hope to those experiencing similar problems. And, when all of our own stories of recovery and hope appear on the site, we certainly believe that it will achieve its aim.
For those of you who want to take a peek at our fledgling site, go to http://www.pathwaygroupstoke.wordpress.com/.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 114: Speak, Memory.

2011-03-15T22:59:00.000-07:00

The above title is taken from the autobiography of the great writer Vladimir Nabokov, who was most famous, perhaps, for writing "Lolita", that infamous tale of the academic Humbert Humbert and his perverted pursuit of under-age girls, or "nymphets", as he likes to call them in the text. Anyway, what better title for an autobiography, I thought, being, as an autobiography is, perhaps just a collection of one's past memories, all jotted down for everyone else to see. Hence the autobiography's reputation as an "unreliable" form because of its overwhelming subjectivity.
When my own memory "speaks", however, it does not tend to induce the feeling that I want to write down all that I remember. Indeed, my own memory seems to be littered with remnants of embarrassing behaviour, mistakes; things, generally, I shouldn't have done. OK, so I know I've suffered from what is regarded as perhaps the most severe of mental illnesses, and at some points that has been responsible for the things I've done, rather than any will of my own in my sane state. But, this doesn't stop the feelings of regret and sometimes, shame, at having behaved so abysmally.
It seems, also, that in this I am not alone. Reading through some blogs the other day, it became clear to me that those who have experienced mental ill health often have many regrets about their behaviour when ill. It is only when one comes down from an episode of illness that one's social conscience seems to kick back in and the feelings of embarrassment or shame begin. Sonya, over at "Not Singing the Bipolar Blues", has often spoken about this phenomenon, and for "TheraScribbles", who writes about her own experience of depression, it seems even insignificant events from the past can cause overwhelming feelings of embarrassment or regret. In her blog "Regrets, I've Had a Few" she explains this uncomfortable experience (and I hope she doesn't mind me quoting her here):
"I tend to dwell on things. Things that may have happened 20 years ago... or more. As I have discussed before, I also sometimes 'catastrophize' things. Combine those two things and you've got a recipe for more darkness. A fragment of a memory of something that happened in high school and has very likely been forgotten by all others concerned, can have a physical effect on me. When one pops up, I can feel it hit me like a briskly swung pillow. I usually openly and physically flinch when something like that enters my addled mind. It's quite ridiculous, in fact."
Well, I would say that it isn't ridiculous at all. I tend to do the same thing. Thera writes that the thing to do, then, is to learn from such errors and try to move on, thereby extinguishing some of the pain of such recall. For me personally, I think I have managed to do this. After a few years of now good mental health, I can begin to rationalise such thoughts, telling myself such behaviour was a result of really quite severe illness. Indeed, we are often taught by mental health services how to do this; by performing a sort of self CBT, we can turn negative memories into more positive thoughts. We are also told to try to live "in the present", and avoid too much rumination over either the uncertainties of the future or the downright embarrassments of the past. So, now, I can't change the past, but I know I can change the way I think about it.
Having said all that, this still doesn't entirely stop the operation of my memory, and sometimes it seems impossible to stop being bludgeoned with remembrances of my "madder" days. Indeed, I remember actually trying to write an autobiographical account of my descent into insanity, stopping after 7000 words, such was the deluge of shameful thoughts. Eventually, it began to feel like, perhaps, not a cathartic, but unhealthy exercise. Every time I would call on my memory, it seemed to come back to me carrying a tatty rag or a broken dream.
So, if all we have left at the end of life is our memories, better make some good ones, as the saying goes. And, I think, to end on a more positive note, I am in the process of doing just that. Or else, every time my memory "speaks", tell it emphatically to shut up.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 113: A Tribute to Cath.

2011-03-11T23:49:00.000-08:00

At the Pathways Group on Tuesday of last week, we were given some very sad news. We were told that a member of our little group, who had been coming since its inception some four years ago, had passed away. Her name was Cath Barker, and although we had known that Cath was suffering from an incurable and untreatable degenerative lung condition, the news of her sudden passing was an unexpected shock.
Cath had been a key member of our group, always giving us a laugh whenever we would fall into silence or seemed to have nothing to say. Her buoyancy and good humour always kept us in good spirits, and indeed, even upon hearing the news that she had contracted this terrible condition, she never changed. That was what was so remarkable about Cath. Knowing that she only had a relatively short time to live, she stayed resolutely cheerful and showed not an ounce of self-pity, and in doing so, we all thought, showed astounding bravery.
Not only this, though. Cath was not content just to sit back and let the worst happen, and despite difficulties in breathing, initially planned trips away to Scotland, Norway and Amsterdam. The thought of Cath being unleashed in Amsterdam was, however, a little worrying (in a good humoured sort if way), being, as she was, the recognised "wild child" of the group. Cath often remarked on her more wild days- "I used to be a bit of a bugger", she would say in true Potteries fashion. But, really, this "reputation", if that's what it was, was actually just a bit of a joke shared between her and those close to her, so when I say it was worrying that she would be "unleashed" in Amsterdam, I am only really trying to join in on the camaraderie.
Fortunately for us in the group, we were able to see Cath only a week before she passed away. We all went out to Tittesworth, out in the country, and had a lovely time looking out over the scenery there. Our resident photographer, Dom, took some pictures, which will obviously have an added poignancy for us.
Less fortunately, Cath was unable to go on her trips abroad, such was the nature of her condition and the extent to which it had deteriorated. But, again, despite this disappointment, Cath remained upbeat and full of good natured banter.
Much like our other good friend, Matt Aitken, of whose passing I wrote in a previous blog, Cath was the very antithesis of the stereotypes of mental illness. She had worked hard for most of her life, and she was funny, gentle and kind.
In tribute to Cath, then, I shall print here a few words from a poem by D.H. Lawrence, entitled "Self-Pity", which, perhaps, are fitting to the way in which she handled all that had befallen her:
"I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop dead frozen from a bough,
without ever having felt sorry for itself."
So, here's to Cath, our very own "wild thing", who never once, despite what she faced, felt sorry for herself. I, and I'm sure the rest of us at the Pathways Group, will never forget her and her incredible bravery.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 112: A Journey to the Dark Side.

2011-03-06T06:15:00.000-08:00

I remember when I first became ill that some of my friends remarked that I had, to use a "Star Wars" analogy, "gone over to the dark side". Of course, we will all remember (well, most of those of my generation will) Luke Skywalker and his battle against the evil "empire" and the "dark side" of "the force", which was personified in the character of Darth Vader, who, as it turned out, was also Luke's father (gasp!). And then I got to thinking about why it would be that some of my friends would make such a comparison. I have blogged before about how mental ill health is often confused with just simple bad behaviour (see my blog, "Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know") and it seems to me that we live within a culture which is almost, if not obsessed, then fascinated by the aberrant, the dangerous, the bad.
Indeed, during a certain period in the '80s and '90s, it seemed that films and books, at least those of the thriller genre, were almost always about serial killers. It was probably Hannibal Lecter in the film "Silence of the Lambs" that started the trend. But, far from being portrayed simply as a very bad man, Hannibal was complex, himself a psychiatrist of, it seemed, genius, and cultured to the point of loving classical music and being able to sketch a scene of Rome in incredible detail just from memory. So, audiences were introduced to a paradox- a man who could bite off someone's tongue without his pulse going above a normal level, and yet intelligent and sensitive enough to listen to Bach. One is reminded, perhaps, of the philosopher Martin Heidegger, who, despite being a philosopher of importance and an incredibly intelligent man, also harboured Nazi sympathies. OK, so he didn't exactly murder people like Hannibal did, but the duality was there. Indeed, in the sequels to "Silence of the Lambs", Thomas Harris seemed to latch on to the fact that his Hannibal character was fast becoming the most popular thing in his novels, both of them, "Hannibal" and "Hannibal Rising", being mostly about his strangely appealing invention. So, it seems, no longer were audiences contented with seeing someone as simply a bad egg, they were interested in what made them tick, what their motives might be, finding them, perhaps, as I have said, strangely appealing.
All this seems a far cry from the "Dirty Harry" movies, the first and best of which, directed by Don Siegel in the '70s, starred Clint Eastwood as the eponymous hero. In the film he was pitted against the random killer, "Scorpio", who was, quite simply, just a very bad, twisted man. Eastwood's character, on the other hand, was the upholder of the law, who didn't mind twisting the rules to his own advantage to get the job done, hence his nick name, "Dirty" Harry Callahan. So, in this film, it is clear where the audience's sympathies should lie. Along with Harry, as he chases Scorpio to a final shoot-out. However, it is hard now to watch this film and not be slightly shocked by its sometimes casual racism (almost all the criminals Harry comes across are black, with the exception of Scorpio himself) and its seeming endorsement of Harry's own dubious "methods". In fact, when the film was released, some critics accused it of being an endorsement of fascism.
So, when speaking of such things, it seems hard to avoid some political questions. As our understanding of what makes bad guys bad guys has increased, has this led to a more humane society? Or is it that the whole issue has become confused, and the bad guy gets off lightly? However we choose to look at it, there is no doubt that our interest in badness has increased and this has been reflected in our culture. One apparent answer to whether this is a good or bad thing in itself is provided by Arthur C. Clarke in his book "3001: The Final Odyssey", in which he states that, in the future, an over-interest in "badness", or as he puts it, "pathological" psychology, comes to be seen as "pathological" itself. In his argument, then, our very own way of thinking about such things might be, in itself, a sort of aberration.
As for my own "journey to the dark side", I am glad to report that I am finally out of it. Although I can say that I may have shared the culture's obsession, at one point, with badness (perhaps through my depression), I have come to see that it is far from as interesting as we think it might be. In my experience, the pathological, the aberrant, always turns out to be banal, cruel, humourless and boring. I much prefer, in the words of "Monty Python" and Eric Idle, to "always look on the bright side of life".

Dave's Progress. Chapter 111: The Problems of Dual Diagnosis.

2011-02-26T02:00:00.000-08:00

A "dual diagnosis", in the mental health field, is usually applied when a patient/service user presents with both a mental health condition and a substance abuse problem. It is often the case that those experiencing mental illness can "self-medicate" with alcohol or other drugs. Conversely, the consumption of such drugs can lead to mental illness. The professional is then left with a serious dilemma- is the mental illness driving the substance abuse, or is the substance abuse driving the mental illness? It is often difficult for mental health staff to know the answer to this question, and treating those who abuse alcohol, for example, can be a lot more difficult than those who present with a mental health condition alone. What is known, though, is that instances of those presenting with substance abuse and mental health problems is on the increase. If I recall correctly, in a meeting of the steering group for the treatment of psychosis in my area, an outreach worker suggested that something like 60% of people coming in to mental health services also had some form of substance abuse issue. We were also told at the Pathways Group in a talk by Paul Hammersley (a lecturer, CBT counsellor and leading member of the CASL campaign) that substance-induced psychosis was on the increase.
Mental Health practices, then, would appear to have a serious problem on their hands, one which, if my own experience and what I have read is anything to go by, they are not doing all that well in dealing with.
As a service user I have come to understand just how difficult it is to treat those who have both substance abuse and mental health problems, but what truly scares me about this issue is the apparent amount of prejudice amongst mental health staff against patients who present with such issues. Indeed, those, particularly, who are seen as having a substance-induced problem, seem to be seen by many as not "genuine" cases, in that it was an act of their own will which brought them to that situation. I have even had it relayed to me by one psychiatrist that many see such patients as "not their problem", or they have a "problem with" treating them because they view their condition as self-inflicted, whereas "genuine" mental illness is never a matter of such choice.
My own experience of mental health services would seem to confirm such worries. Despite a history of depression, mania and psychosis, I came to be seen, somehow, at one point in my treatment, as simply a drunk. True, I was drinking heavily at the time, but in the absence of any medication at all, alcohol was my only coping tool. Since I have been on medication and have got better, my problem with alcohol has abated. But at the time, I felt I was being treated by mental health services as some sort of social pariah. I was spoken to in ways that, as someone who was genuinely ill, and as it was later admitted, should never have happened. There also seemed to be glaring contradictions in my treatment. Where I was once sectioned whist under the influence of alcohol, when I came to actually try to get in to hospital later on in the same condition, I was told bluntly that I could not be assessed whilst drunk. This had not prevented my sectioning before and also one psychiatrist telling me, upon my protests that I was not a danger to myself or anyone else, that I was a danger to myself because I drank. Why the contradiction? Why the resentful attitudes towards me? I can only see it as a confirmation that many in mental health practice do indeed harbour prejudices against those who have substance misuse problems. But what is to be done when 60% of those entering mental health services have some form of substance abuse issue? Are they to be treated with similar contempt?
It is not just me, it seems, who is saying this. Professor Graham Thornicroft (yes, my favourite guy is back!) states, in his book about stigma, "Shunned", that:
"In a British study using case vignettes, consultant psychiatrists were asked to assess the influence of a past diagnosis of alcohol dependence on their views about what treatment they would recommend. Psychiatrists reviewing the vignette with the diagnosis of alcohol dependence were more likely to rate the patient as difficult, annoying, less in need of admission, uncompliant, having poor prognosis and more likely to be discharged from follow-up."
Indeed, I was so upset by my own experiences that I once wrote to Dr. Lisetta Lovett at Keele Medical School regarding what had happened. She returned by saying:
"I agree with you that health professionals as well as society are very intolerant of conditions perceived as self-inflicted such as alcoholism. It is not easy to change public attitudes but professionals should be just that...professional in their attitudes, that is non-judgemental."
In the end, I had to go in to private treatment, at a great expense to my parents. I was detoxed, diagnosed and medicated within two weeks and since then, apart from one blip, I think, I have only gotten better. The whole charade which I went through under NHS care went on for around, if I remember correctly, 18 months. Something, ladies and gentlemen, is obviously wrong with that.
I hope that mental health staff would take what happened to me as a cautionary tale, and to consider just why they may be so dismissive of those who abuse alcohol or other substances. After all, with an increasing number of people turning to the bottle or other drugs in their desperation and despair, it is perhaps unlikely that you will never come in to contact with such patients.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 110: The Poet and the Psychiatrist.

2011-02-16T22:36:00.000-08:00

One of the first questions I asked when coming into mental health services was, if there is no such thing as "normal", why is anyone locked away in a psychiatric institution? It is only the concept of apparent "normality" which results in its binary opposite, "madness". So, despite the protests of those in practice who continually suggested to me that there was no such thing as "normal", I could not get over the fact, and the glaring contradiction, that psychiatric services would want us all to lead a "normal" life. It also seemed to me that creative people, often a little eccentric in their ways, may come into conflict with mental health services simply because of the way they are. What would happen, I wondered, were, for example, William Blake to walk through the door of my local residential unit, a man so fuelled by imagination that, in his writings, he seemed to create an entire world. Would it be possible that the "normalising" processes of psychiatric practice may harm, damage or even destroy such a person's talent?

William Blake, Visionary Poet.

In two recent articles these questions were approached. In the first, "Poetry, the creative process and mental illness", by Alex Hudson (BBC News), it was shown that in a recent study by psychologist Kay Redfield Jamison, poets were 20 times more likely to end up in an asylum than the general population. The study took the incidence of mood disorder, suicide and institutionalisation among major British and Irish poets between 1600 and 1800 as its basis. Even Wordsworth, to return to Blake for a second, is said to have remarked, on the latter's passing, "Alas, he was mad, the poor fellow." Furthermore, the article suggested that other studies had found that brain patterns in artists at work were similar to those of "schizophrenics" and that creative graduates share more personality traits with bipolar patients than less creative ones.
Could it be, then, that the mind of the creative person and the institution of psychiatry inevitably clash? Is creativity itself in opposition to the processes of mental health practice? The article quotes psychologist Gary Fitzgibbon, who says, "creativity is certainly about not being constrained by rules or accepting the restrictions society places on us". In my experience, and in contrast to this, psychiatric practice seems to be all about getting people to adhere to rules and making them behave in socially accepted ways. Is it any wonder, then, that creative people, who perhaps break with conformity, are more likely to end up being treated for some mental disorder? Indeed, Fitzgibbon goes on to say, "of course the more people break the rules, the more likely they are to be perceived as mentally ill."
Like a lot of people, I felt, in my own experience of being treated for a mental illness, that some of my creativity had been lost in the process. Also like a lot of people, I somewhat resented that treatment upon its initiation. Coming down from an episode of illness was almost like coming down from some kind of not altogether unpleasant drug, and I often felt that some important part of myself was being annihilated. The phrase "don't take away my demons because you'll take away my angels too", which I used as a title for one of my blogs in which I described this process, often came to my mind. Indeed, the poet Luke Wright suggests in the article that " a lot of creativity comes from a conflict somewhere in your mind". In its worst form, perhaps psychiatry can iron out such conflict, destroy creativity, serving only to pacify, sedate or render conforming.
I understand that modern psychiatric practice would attempt to avoid such things, but in a second article, Diana Rose, co-director of the Service User Research Enterprise (SURE) at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, suggests that "normalisation" is still a process at work today and that it is a source of stigma to many service users. She states:
"...we are often seen as a bundle of deficits: cognitive deficits, emotional deficits and behavioural deficits. These, according to mental health professionals are to be "corrected" with rehabilitation techniques which will normalise the person...this can make the recipient of these techniques feel completely inadequate. We are in need of "correction"."
So, the process of normalisation would still appear to be in use, and it just might be possible, that in "correcting" our deficits, psychiatry also unwittingly dallies with that which need not be a "deficit", but resolutely a positive attribute.
But, whatever I may think, the question of what is "normal" is going to remain a vexed one for psychiatry and one which it cannot any longer avoid with simple platitudes. It seems, also, that care must be taken to avoid dismantling, instead of building on, the creative talents of service users.
Anyway, as an aside from all this mental health talk, I thought I would just print a random picture of a Koala Bear here, just to demonstrate that, at last, I have got to grips with putting pictures into my blog.

The Lovable, Cuddly Koala Bear.

See you next time.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 109: Photo Opportunity.

2011-02-16T02:52:00.000-08:00

The other day me and a friend from the Pathways Group went, to use the Stoke parlance, "up 'anley, duck"; meaning, we went to Hanley, one of the six towns which make up the Potteries, now regarded as the City Centre. The reason we did this was to take some photos for the "Local People, Local Lives" project.
To bring you up to date, my piece for the project, entitled "Remembering the ABC Cinema", has now been completed and is ready to be distributed to various venues throughout the Potteries. The hope is that members of the public will relate to a story about their own locality, perhaps sparking off memories of their own. The anti-stigma message is, then, subtly conveyed, with me mentioning my diagnosis only towards the end of the piece. We found that other campaigns, which are more "in your face" about mental illness and seem laden with facts about it, are perhaps a little off putting. So, by using modern social marketing techniques, we hope to get across the simple, but important message that some one's mental ill health is not the most important thing about them and that they can have other interests, hobbies and experiences. In short, they are, like anyone, altogether human, and resolutely not like the violent, alienated "other" so often presented in the media.
Anyway, the photos we took in Hanley were for my friend's piece, which is about the local libraries of Stoke-on-Trent. As neither of us has much experience of taking photos, we had to get my Dad, who happens to own a rather expensive camera, to take the photos for us. As a first for this blog, I will attempt to show you some of the photos we took that day below.

The City Centre Library, Hanley.

Unfortunately, I cannot get any of the other pictures to load on to this posting, so for the time being you will have to be contented with just the one photograph of our City Centre library. Yes, I have returned to my old Luddite self again. But, this is a first for this blog. Never before have I put up photos, so perhaps I should congratulate myself on being able to put up just one. The Reginald Mitchell (inventor of the "Spitfire") memorial and the "Steel Man" statue shall have to wait. Indeed, who knows what I may put up next- more pictures of my beautiful home town, perhaps? (no irony intended!).
But if it is that you do happen to drop by old Stoke-on-Trent, please be sure to try to pick up one of our leaflets and help us all make the stigma surrounding mental illness a thing of the past.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 108: Why Don't You Use Me?

2011-02-07T02:31:00.000-08:00

Most people don't like being used. There's something about the very phrase that implies exploitation. I, on the other hand, would love to be "used". I would love for someone to come along and say, "David, we could use you", in this or that capacity. "Yes, we could certainly use you, David", in fact, would be music to my ears.
After a life-time of education, and moreover, thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands being spent on me by the state, I simply wonder, is this the best that can be made of my talents, whatever they may be? And, I think, there must be a lot of people asking the same question.
So, after watching a programme on BBC 2 the other night, entitled "Who Gets The Best Jobs?", one possible answer became apparent.
According to the programme, the gap between rich and poor in this country is growing ever wider. The "social mobility" of which I spoke in a previous chapter, also, seems to be becoming a thing of the past. Whereas in the era of the post-war "baby-boomer" generation one could expect, even coming from a lowly working-class background, to at least earn a living, the mechanisms which provided such security are now becoming ever more rare. Even those who did not get to university once had a ladder up in the form of local industry, but that, the programme stated, is now in remission. For those who do get to go to college, there is now the matter of exactly which college you have been to. No longer is it good enough to just have a degree, it must be from the right place if one wants to get on in "the professions". More and more, the super-rich seem to be engaging in nepotism, only finding places within certain professions for those who have the right connections and background. To get on otherwise, it appeared that often one would have to work voluntarily for some time. But, as only the rich can afford to do this, windows of opportunity are becoming even narrower.
A number of statistics were given to back up this argument. I can not, at present, recall all of them, but needless to say they reflected a society in which opportunity is only available to a select few. Indeed, one only has to look at the front bench of parliament to understand where privilege can get you, made up, as it is, mostly of ex-pupils of Eton and graduates of Oxford or Cambridge. Now with tuition fees at universities on the increase, this situation seems only to be getting worse.
There are, of course, those who disagree with such arguments, claiming that if you are bright, talented and strong-willed enough, you will get on in life. One academic even argued that people from the middle-classes and up are just innately more talented and bright, and that is why they seem to be getting all the top jobs in society. The journalist who made the programme rightly pointed out that this would be an offensive argument to many, with its suggestion that those from the more privileged classes are somehow genetically more capable. To my mind, it seemed to prove the thesis that to be really stupid takes a life-time of education.
What can not be argued with, though, is the statistical data, and indeed, there was no argument from this academic contradicting the fact that the middle and upper classes are getting all the best and most powerful positions, often leaving those from the lower echelons in an economically fragile position.
Thatcher's promise, then, of a "classless" society with opportunity open to all seems a distant dream. The gap is getting wider, not slimmer, and that, as the journalist pointed out, is bad for everybody. The countries which are most economically productive are those which use all of their human resources, and, unfortunately, it seems we, in Britain, have yet to learn this lesson.
So the answer to my question, "why don't you use me?", may have nothing at all to do with my intelligence, talent, or drive, but everything to do with where I am from, which school I went to and which university. I always thought that my mental ill health is what has held me back, and of course, I don't think you can underestimate the role that has played in my lack of economic progress. However, add to that these other factors, and the picture which is painted is a depressing one. It sort of begs the question, is it really any longer possible in this country to achieve great things by skill and talent alone, or is it that you have to know the right people, do the right degree at the right college and have enough money to move in such high circles?
One person who did achieve greatness through sheer talent, Paul Weller, perhaps got it right when he wrote, "the world is your oyster, but your future's a clam. It's got you in its grip before you're born." So, farewell equality of opportunity, farewell fairness, farewell social justice. This is not the classless, but the class-ridden society, where money does indeed talk.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 107: Smarter or Harder?

2011-02-02T03:37:00.000-08:00

"And I always thought that it would make me smarter,
But it's only made me harder."
R.E.M., "Near Wild Heaven".

I took a trip down memory lane earlier today by listening to some music I hadn't heard in, perhaps, twenty odd years. It was music that I used to listen to around the time of my initial experience of mental ill health, and, boy, did it pack an emotional punch. It reminded me of the time, around 1990, when I first left for university and a, supposedly, bright, new existence. Only thing was, I was going through the most emotionally turbulent time of my life. My girlfriend and I were in the process of splitting up, I was leaving home for the first time and all my friends, it seemed, were displeased with me for a variety of reasons, not least of which was an abiding low mood which had appeared to have come out of nowhere. The more I look back on it, though, the more I find it hard to delineate whether it was the low mood that appeared first, or if the low mood itself was a reaction to all these changes in my life.
Immediately prior to all this, though, this period had also been one of the most joyous in my life. I had been in love for the first time and my girlfriend and I had travelled together, been to the cinema together, eaten out together, gone to college together. Indeed, we seemed to do almost everything together, apart, that is, from move in with one another. So, as I listened to the strains of R.E.M.'s "Near Wild Heaven", I couldn't help but remember all the good times that we had shared.
However, I then remembered just how low I had become at that time, and the experience of first love and then unceremoniously losing it came back to me with a bang, and then I heard a lyric which I often would play over in my mind at that time- "I always thought that it would make me smarter, but it's only made me harder." Then, it was as if Michael Stipe and his band, who I am still a great fan of, had seen into my own experience and clarified it for me. It was as if they were saying what I actually felt at the time, which was that I had had an experience, and suffered for it. I felt that I had somehow become bereft of emotion. So, unlike Coleridge's "Ancient Mariner", who emerges from his ordeal "a sadder but a wiser man", I felt I was very much not particularly wiser, but numbed to feeling.
It is only with time that I think I have become that little bit wiser and some of that feeling has returned. But, still, I will never be the person I was then. He is lost some place in time never to be reclaimed. And I suppose it's just a part of growing up that we have to accept that we cannot reinhabit the past, as Gatsby has to learn so cruelly in F.Scott Fitzgerald's masterpiece, "The Great Gatsby".
I spoke only a couple of chapters ago of how my experience has led me to have a new and invigorated appreciation of life. This is true. But let it also be said, that perhaps like everyone, on their own streets of progress, I have become not only smarter, but harder.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 106: The Indiscreet Charmlessness of the Bourgeoisie.

2011-01-26T02:56:00.000-08:00

The above title, for those who know and for those who don't, is a play on the title of a Luis Bunuel film called "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" ("Le Charme Discret de la Bourgeoisie" in French). It was actually a friend of mine at the Pathways Group who came up with this title, and he was referring to one of my previous blogs in which I wrote about the erotic "charms" of Nigella Lawson. The blog was entitled "That Obscure Object of Desire", named after another Bunuel film. So, you can see the connection which was being made by my friend, suggesting, that far from being an erotic pleasure, the shenanigans of Nigella rather reflected the "charmlessness" of her class. Indeed, looking back on it, one sees that Nigella's programme could be interpreted, with all its show of bourgeois privilege and manners, as mind-achingly, relentlessly, middle-class. As Nigella primps and preens around her perfect kitchen, and invites round her perfect friends to eat her perfect food, one almost forgets that there could be another, less affluent world outside. Much like Bunuel's film, the only thing seeming to be on the mind of Nigella and her friends is the relentless pursuit of dinner and being served and pampered. But, perhaps also like in the film, we can see the cracks in this ostensibly perfect, infallible, cosseted world begin to show. One can almost imagine, as in Bunuel's vision, their secret hypocrisies, corruption and slow-burning fears being steadily exposed.
Anyway, all this got me thinking about how the class system works today. Unusually enough, on last night's "The One Show" on BBC1, this subject was broached. The programme suggested that the clear delineations of class into upper, middle and working were perhaps no longer as relevant to today's world as when they were initially brought into being to assess society in the industrialised age. With a new survey now being undertaken to reveal the class structure of Britain, one's material wealth and status is not all that will be taken into consideration, but also things like one's hobbies, interests and social network, or as some clever French sociologist once put it, one's "cultural capital".
So it is that the days of the satire of "The Frost Report", in which John Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett acted out the roles of the upper, middle and working classes, appear now somewhat antiquated. The days of the old servility towards our so-called "betters" appears to be over. The days of "I look up to him because...", or "I look down on him because...", or, as Ronnie Corbett as the working-class man intoned in the final line of "The Frost Report" sketch, "I know my place", seem now oddly rigid and outdated.
After all, these are the days, as we are told by politicians, of ever-increasing "social mobility". Just because one is born into the working-classes, does not mean that you can't elevate yourself into the middle echelons of society. Indeed, the majority of the people interviewed in "The One Show" felt themselves to be "middle-class". Some, even, explained how they had working-class roots but had become, either through education or work, middle-class. Even little old me, although this is pushing things a bit, might be viewed, because of my education and "cultural capital", as middle-class, despite my impecuniousness.
Add to all this the way that industry has essentially changed from a manufacturing to a service base (this is particularly true of Stoke-on-Trent, where the pottery industry has largely been replaced by service industries) and one has a situation where almost everyone seems to be becoming middle-class.
It was Margaret Thacher who, in the '80s, proclaimed that she would create a "classless" society. If she meant the offer of opportunity and affluence for all, though, then this seems to have been a resolute failure. While many of us do perhaps enjoy increased opportunities of social mobility, Thatcher's zeal for reform virtually destroyed the industrial base of the country and with it the life-styles of the working-classes. To my mind, then, the working-class of this country was changed beyond recognition, and far from becoming socially upwardly mobile, many appeared to be left floundering. The situation which has ensued appears to have been the creation of a whole "underclass" which has perhaps replaced the traditionally subservient working-class. This, again, seems particularly true of my own locality, where rates of poverty, unemployment and illness are disproportionately high.
So, "Red Dave" strikes again. But you must allow me my little foibles. And, I still think that, as some of us move upwards towards an ever-burgeoning middle-classness, many have been left behind. And from where I'm sitting, "the indiscreet charmlessness of the bourgeoisie" seems particularly charmless.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 105: Benefits- "What's Going to Happen to Me?"

2011-01-24T03:36:00.000-08:00

I've just been reading a document about the abolition of disability living allowance (DLA), which is to be replaced by a new benefit called Personal Independence Payment in 2013/14. Aside from being a little more than confusing, the document suggests that one thing which is certain about this change in the benefits system is that some who currently receive DLA will lose out, it being the intention of the coalition to cut the cost of DLA by at least 20% through these reforms.
So, who exactly will all this affect? It appears that this remains uncertain, although those who currently receive the lower rate of the care component of DLA may be at risk, as this is strongly hinted at in the government's consultation document. It is also possible that people who are unable to walk but who can use a wheelchair will lose their higher rate mobility allowance. Further than that, the document states, it is very hard to guess who may lose out at this stage. "All we can be certain of", says the document at the end, "is that hundreds of thousands of current DLA claimants will be the losers."
So, yet again the coalition appears to be targeting some of the most vulnerable people in society to pay for the economic mess in which we currently find ourselves. Every day now, it seems, there is some story on the news about forthcoming cuts to services which are mostly used by vulnerable, poor or young people, and as I saw one morning, one pundit suggested that the welfare state itself was in more peril now than it has been for many years, this appearing to confirm my friend's suggestion that all such cuts were a means of not just paying off our budget deficit, but of fulfilling a right-wing wish to dismantle the welfare state.
I am not an economist, so do not fully understand the complexities of the situation in which we find ourselves. All I know is that being governed by a, how can I put it, bunch of toffs who don't seem to understand at all how the majority of people in this country live and survive, is becoming irksome. We have even been told that we should no longer "demonise" the bankers who got us in to this mess and still award themselves massive bonus payments. It seems OK, though, for the political right to "demonise" those on benefits and create the impression that we live in a so-called "benefits culture", where generations of families languish within the benefits system. OK, I know that some people cheat and that, in some areas of Britain, generational unemployment is a problem, but surely this is not an accurate picture of all those who are out of work or who claim disability?
I was told myself, under the previous government, that because, it seems, I have a diagnosis of an illness regarded as a severe disability, I would get DLA payments for the rest of my life. I still get the lower rate care component of DLA, but when the new system arrives, it seems that this previous promise may be scrapped. I am all in favour of getting rid of the old culture of low expectation for people with disabilities such as mine, and when my illness is known to be an episodic one, where one can enjoy long periods of relatively good health, such awards of benefits payments can appear arbitrary. Indeed, I know many with the same diagnosis as me who receive the middle rate of DLA and, therefore, get more money than me, but seem to be in no different circumstances than myself. I wonder why this is, as some, also, seem to be in the opposite situation, having the same diagnosis and not receiving DLA at all. So, streamlining and making the benefits system better at delivering what it should to who it should is not something I would contend. It is just that I also know, that many do not make a full recovery, that 75% of those with diagnoses of psychotic illness remain unemployed, no doubt due in no small part to stigma, and therefore need all the support and help they can get. It is for these people, then, that I begin to worry, and who must be wondering, in Cameron's nebulous "big society", "what's going to happen to me?"

Dave's Progress. Chapter 104: Oh No, I've Been Tagged!

2011-01-22T03:59:00.000-08:00

No, I have not, as the title of this blog might suggest, committed some offence and been forced to wear an electronic tag around my leg to make sure I'm in my home at curfew time. Instead, Gary, aka klahanie, my happy, hairy friend, has "tagged" me, which involves me answering a number of questions and then asking four more bloggers to do the same. So, in the spirit that this was intended, I shall endeavour to answer all 19 questions. I sincerely hope you don't get bored.

1. if you have pets, do you see them as merely animals, or are they members of your family?
Currently, I don't have any pets, but I think I might like one. People who experience mental ill health are often told to get a pet, as it helps them focus on something beyond themselves and encourages responsibility. I, however, seem to have enough trouble looking after myself! But if I did have a pet, I hope I'd treat it as a member of my family.

2. if you can have a dream to come true, what would it be?
I would sincerely like to visit America. I love American writers, films, etc. and have long dreamed of having the guts to travel right across the country by car, or something. I would like to see the "real" America, the America of Steinbeck, Fitzgerald, Harper Lee, or even Hunter S. Thompson. I know the realities of which all these writers speak probably no longer exists, but I love them all and would love to compare their visions with what I find.

3. what is the one thing most hated by you?
I suppose I hate to see suffering, especially the needless kind. In the austere times economically across the world at the moment, one tends to see a lot of it, and in my old, dear England, it almost seems as if the poor and vulnerable are being made to pay for the mistakes of the incredibly rich. I can't bear that.

4. what would you do with a billion dollars?
Well, speaking of being incredibly rich! I suppose I'd have to give most of it away, leaving myself with just enough to get by. Maybe, I dunno, £10,000,000. Just so's I'd have enough, you know. Seriously, though, I think that amount of wealth might carry with it a great responsibility and I'd hope to be a philanthropist and not a miser.

5. what helps to pull you out of a bad mood?
A good dose of anti-depressants! No, seriously, I'd have to say just doing things that I enjoy, like reading, writing, listening to music or watching a good film. All these things help me relax, unwind and think that, really, life ain't too bad.

6. which is more blessed, loving someone or being loved by someone?
Unrequited love must be difficult to bear, and has been the subject of poets throughout the ages. So, loving someone without being loved in return must be difficult. On the other hand, being loved by someone and not being able to love back seems like a tragedy for both parties. So, I would hope that any relationship would be, perhaps, more equal, where the feeling of love was mutual.

7. what is your bedtime routine?
Drink two bottles of vodka. Take some pills. Pass out. But, I jest once again. It's usually watching a film, reading, having a nice cup of tea and then bed. Ah!

8. if you are currently in a relationship, how did you meet your partner?
I am not currently in a relationship, although I have looked. It seems extremely hard to find an interesting, understanding person who does not have an agenda. I think that having a history of mental ill health makes meeting someone fraught with difficulties, but I know such difficulties are not exclusive to those with experience of mental illness.

9. if you could watch a creative person in the act of the creative process, who would it be?
I would probably sit beside a great writer when working on his or her book. I would love to have seen, for example, F.Scott Fitzgerald when composing "The Great Gatsby", or Dostoevsky when writing "Crime and Punishment".

10. what kinds of books do you read?
I read all sorts of books, but mostly I suppose I tend towards "classic" literature. I like to think that this expands my mind, or is morally instructive, or teaches something valuable about the human condition, but none of that might be the case.

11. how would you see yourself in ten years time?
In ten years time I hope to be older. Seriously, though, I would hope that I am still healthy and relatively happy and still working in some capacity, maybe with a partner by then.

12. what’s your fear?
Now that my parents are getting to be of a certain age, I do quite fear their imminent passing. I have been through a lot, but don't quite know how I will cope with that. I came to rely heavily on my parents through my experience of mental ill health and I suppose my fear is being alone with, perhaps, no one to turn to in the way that I can with my parents.

13. would you give up all junk food for the rest of your life for the opportunity to visit outer space?
Yes.

14. would you rather be single and rich or married, but poor?
I think being single and rich might be quite lonely and isolating, so I think I'd definitely rather be married and poor.

15. what’s the first thing you do when you wake up?
The first thing I usually do when I get up is eat breakfast, which usually consists of some fruit, toast, and the abidingly English cup of cha (tea).

16. if you could change one thing about your spouse/partner what would it be?
If I could change one thing about my spouse/partner it would be that I'd actually have one!

17. if you could pick a new name for yourself, what would it be?
I would quite like to change my name, for although I don't mind my christian name, my surname is a very rare and often misspelled one, so I seem to have spent a good deal of time just spelling it out to people who don't know me. Perhaps I would change it to the name of the older generation of my family on my mother's side, Sheldon. Yes, that would sound OK, I think. David Sheldon.

18. would you forgive and forget no matter how horrible a thing that special someone has done?
There was an incident long ago when I was more or less certain that my then girlfriend had cheated on me. Being who I was then, I don't think I even brought up the subject. I was only young and was inclined to bottle things up. Given the same situation now, I really don't know how I would react. I think I'd certainly bring things out in to the open this time, but as to whether I would forgive and forget, I think that would very much depend on how much I loved and wanted to be with them. Going on past behavior alone, though, yes, I would forgive and forget.

19. if you could only eat one thing for the next 6 months, what would it be?
Currently being on a healthy eating plan, there are many indulgences that I tend to avoid now, such as cheese, chips and chocolate. I couldn't really imagine eating one thing alone for six months, but if I had to choose, I guess it would have to be one of those things, probably cheese, so long as I could have a cracker or a piece of bread with it. Does that count?

So, all 19 questions answered. I will now pass on this enviable task to four more bloggers. I would just say that to make things easier, you can copy and paste the questions, as klahanie suggested to me, in to your own blog. They are listed together on Gary's (klahanie's) page. I would also say that the four bloggers I mention are not compelled to take part in this little exercise, so please don't feel obliged if you don't have the time. But, the four people I am "tagging" are as follows:
Dixie at "dcrelief".
bazza at "To Discover Ice".
The Snee at "The Sometimes Never Eventually Express".
Sonya at "Not Singing the Bipolar Blues".
I hope you enjoyed this little foray in to my banal existence. It's a wonder you're still awake. Maybe you're not. Oh well.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 103: Not Until You've Been to the Lowest Valley...

2011-01-19T22:35:00.000-08:00

I was having a conversation with a friend of mine over lunch yesterday, and we both agreed that in some bizarre way both our experiences of mental ill health had been some sort of mixed blessing. I have written before in these pages of how mental illness has been both my nemesis and my saviour, for although when in the throes of illness it was indeed a harrowing experience, I would not, for example, even write this blog or do the voluntary work I so much enjoy were it not for that experience. Not only this, though, makes me think of mental ill heath as an experience which has, in some ways, been "good" for me. Indeed, it is as if I have found a new and invigorated appreciation of life. After being so ill, I can almost not describe the transcendent joy of just, even, waking up in the morning at a "normal" hour and not feeling unwell, and I am reminded of a friend of my mother's, who said that when you reach a certain age, it is almost as if you're grateful just to wake up in the morning and still be alive.
Perhaps it is the same when people have experienced physical illness, and I remember the interview given by the writer Dennis Potter just before his death. Speaking to his friend Melvyn Bragg, Potter said that the experience of being so close to death had somehow made life all the more vivid. He went on to explain that just taking a look out of his window at home had become a breathtaking phenomenon. He seemed awed by the beauty of his garden, and upon seeing a blooming blossom, he said that it seemed to be no longer just a flower, but "the blossomest blossom" you could ever see.
Also, in my friend klahanie's blog, he often speaks of the beauty he sees around him and retains a deeply idealistic view of the world, despite his experience of depression. Indeed, perhaps it is an experience common to those who have been, in some way, unwell, or perhaps it is a case of the old saying, in a roundabout sort of way, that failure teaches you more than success.
So it is that as I potter around my little home, I am immensely thankful for all the little things that seem so often to be taken for granted. For one, I have a roof over my head, and for that I have to thank my parents, who, by allowing me to live here independently, saved me from a situation of imminent homelessness. I have all I need to eat and drink, and never do I end the day unsated. And as I look out of my bedroom window in the early evening, at the verdant green fields illuminated by the Vale floodlights and the sky an astonishing amalgam of reds, oranges and yellows, I can not help but think that there is a certain unkempt, industrial, vagabond beauty to this old renegade city I live in, a city so often maligned and run down even by its own inhabitants.
Perhaps it is true, then, as Theodore Roosevelt wrote in his diary (and who was quoted by, strangely enough, Richard Nixon upon his resignation after the "Watergate" scandal) that "not until you've been to the lowest valley can you know how great it is to be on the highest mountain top."

Dave's Progress. Chapter 102: The Mind is its Own Place.

2011-01-17T17:14:00.000-08:00

"The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven."
John Milton, "Paradise Lost".

It seems to me that it is often the case with mental ill health that it is very difficult for the sufferer to communicate what is actually happening to them, for it is so often misunderstood even by peers, friends, family and such. I know this was certainly the case with me. My first experience of depression was to find that friends, in particular, were either hostile, or felt I was being self-pitying or self-indulgent. "We all have problems, you know", one might say, or "Well, we all get depressed sometimes, I know I do", might another. What seems to have been missing from their assessment was that I was experiencing the symptoms of a very real and debilitating disease. Indeed, in my first experience of mental illness I felt as if something had just descended on me from a great height, a feeling so alien to my usual feelings that I knew and recognised that something was wrong. I knew I was ill. But some, it seemed, insisted that it was "just me", and I was being selfish and basically, spoiling everyone else's party. What I could not seem to get across, and what everyone failed to understand, was that I could not help the way I felt, and indeed, despite it I don't think I once bemoaned my lot or made myself out to be a special case. It was just that my low mood was so pervasive that it could not help but be noticed, and many seemed to take this as some form of personal affront. Why, exactly, people responded the way they did, other than that mental illness is much misunderstood, is still a mystery to me. I seemed bereft of any sympathetic ear.
So it is that mental illnesses like depression can strike anyone at anytime and the national anti-stigma campaign, "Time to Change" has made this clear. Even with all the privileges in the world, mental ill health can soon lay you low, and people such as Stephen Fry, Ruby Wax, Alistair Campbell and Patsy Palmer have all spoken out about their own experiences in an attempt to help the campaign. So, the question, "what has he/she got to be so upset about?" should be rendered redundant.
It is the case, then, that no matter what our circumstances, mental illness can appear. I know in a previous post I spoke of how such things as social and economic deprivation can exacerbate the chances of becoming unwell, but it should be remembered that no-one can really be excluded from the chance of succumbing to such illnesses.
I guess the reason I am saying all this is because it seems to me that certain mental illnesses, particularly depression, are often not taken for the hugely debilitating experiences they can be. As I said, they are often met with the dismissive responses highlighted above. One person told me that even Janet Street-Porter, a supposedly educated and intelligent lady, had said that depression had become the new "back problem", or some such, probably meaning that it was easy to feign and perhaps in some ways a phony disease used by the work-shy to avoid responsibility. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that as I did, many must take such statements on board, perhaps exacerbating the feelings of guilt which the illness can also engender.
I would just say, then, that mental illness can affect anyone, is no respecter of status or money, and when it comes it would seem that one can barely understand it unless you have experienced similar upsets yourself. Many make sense of this by referring to mental illness as an "invisible" phenomenon. I would say that it is only all too visible, just misunderstood, derided and feared.
I hope that the misunderstandings I have mentioned, then, soon disappear, and those who perhaps have a friend or family member who is going through such difficulties will know that, as Milton said, "the mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven."

Dave's Progress. Chapter 101: "That's all for now from..."

2011-01-13T23:49:00.000-08:00

You may notice that this posting is in very quick succession to the last one I made. There is no reason for this, other than that I felt I wanted to tell you that from now on, there may be a slight change to the appearance of my blogs.
No, I will not be changing the template or adding more "gadgets" (not yet, anyway), but I will no longer be signing off my posts in my usual manner. Yes folks, I have decided to get rid of my usual little farewell, "that's all for now from your normal, average, delusional and paranoid man". I hope this little phrase has provided some entertainment for you and a few laughs, intended, as it was, to be a somewhat ironic comment on the nature of mental ill health. Indeed, it may have become something of a catch-phrase, but like all catch phrases, I feel its presence has begun to wear a little thin. So, as I just entirely forgot to include it in my previous posting, I thought I would continue the trend and begin to omit it altogether.
Anyway, the catch-phrase seems to be a little outdated. Some, like Bruce Forsythe, still continue to use catch phrases, his being, of course, "nice to see you, to see you- nice". But as far as I know the catch phrase probably started way back in the days of the music halls, where comedians were often identified through their use of a certain phrase. They said things as meaningless and apparently arbitrary as could be, such as one phrase I heard once- "can you hear me now, mother?", at which point the audience would seem almost involuntarily to erupt in applause. And, who can forget Paul Whitehouse's post-modern invention, Arthur Atkinson, who was a sort of amalgam of many of the old music hall stars (Arthur Askey immediately comes to mind) and whose catch-phrase was "where's me washboard, then?".
So, the catch-phrase seems, mostly, to be no more, and it is time for me to draw the veil over my own. So, for one last time, that's all from "that's all for now from your normal, average, delusional and paranoid man".

Dave's Progress. Chapter 100: The Road to Recovery.

2011-01-12T03:27:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, together with another member of the Pathways Group, I was invited to sit in on the meeting of a steering group brought together to discuss the treatment of psychosis in our local area. The group brought together everyone from a consultant psychiatrist to an outreach worker to a representative from the North Staffs Users Group (an organisation run by service users, i.e patients, which aims to improve mental health services and get the voice of service users heard).
As preparation for the meeting, we were sent a document about making mental health services "recovery" oriented. The document, written by a group of psychiatrists from South London and Maudsley and South West London and St.George's NHS trusts, I felt, contained many good ideas about essentially changing mental health services from a strictly clinical practice defined by symptoms, treatment and cure, to a more recovery based one, being about the "social recovery" as well as the clinical recovery of the service user and building a life beyond illness without necessarily achieving the elimination of all the symptoms of illness.
The concept of recovery, then, was much discussed within the document and it was suggested that there were three core ideas pertaining to the process: Hope- for this is essential in sustaining motivation and supporting expectations of an individually fulfilled life. Agency- which refers to people gaining a sense of control, having jurisdiction over their own problems, the services they use and their lives. It is concerned with self-management, self-determination, choice and responsibility. Opportunity- which links recovery to social inclusion and people's participation in wider society.
The change to a recovery oriented practice, then, would have many implications and would represent something of a paradigm shift in mental health practice. In terms of hope, there is now evidence to suggest that recovery from the most severe of illnesses, including schizophrenia, is not only possible, but statistically becoming more probable. Old models which traditionally saw schizophrenia as having quite a poor prognosis now seem to be a little outdated and I think it is essential that a message of hope is given to a patient right from the outset of treatment, for without the promise of becoming well and achieving, there seems to be little motivation for the service user to even try. In terms of agency, this would perhaps mean a radical shift in the existing power structures involved in mental health practice, with service users being placed on a more equal footing with their carers and even, when well enough, becoming involved in paid positions within mental health services as "peer professionals" who could encourage and help others in their own journeys through the recovery process. Lastly, in terms of opportunity, this would mean mental health professionals perhaps becoming involved in helping people achieve a life beyond mental health services by, for example, aiding them in gaining some form of employment or just engaging them in some form of meaningful activity. This may also have implications in terms of stigma and discrimination, a major barrier to opportunity, as service users would, perhaps, be able to rely on psychiatrists and others of professional capacity to join the fight against stigma.
At the meeting I attended it was discussed how professionals could measure the outcomes of their interventions, and which tools would be appropriate in measuring how well or how badly mental health services were performing in providing such new approaches. If I'm honest, I was a little overcome with all the professional jargon that was used in the meeting, and one wondered whether our presence there was simply tokenistic. I also expected there to be more discussion of how recovery principles were going to be put into practice, and I think only one person, the outreach worker, mentioned something about getting users more involved in choices about their treatment. However, the very fact that we were at the meeting and the fact that many recovery principles seem to be already in operation at the Pathways Group is heartening. There was even a tacit promise made that some of us could, in the near future, take on the role of a paid "peer professional".
All in all, then, the future of mental health treatment looks promising. We are no longer, it seems, and in the words of the great Talking Heads song, on a "road to nowhere". We are, most reassuringly, finally on the road to recovery.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 99: Now That It's All Over.

2011-01-04T11:32:00.000-08:00

OK, so the title of this post may sound a little bit like a song title, and if it isn't one already, then it should be. But of course I refer to the recent debacle that was Christmas and the New Year. I hope yours went well, because, somewhat surprisingly, mine did. On Christmas day I visited my brother and also saw many of my cousins who I had not seen in quite a long time. It was nice to see them all, having grown now into mature adults, all doing their own thing and making their way in the world; some as teachers, some as burgeoning academics and others who were simply travelling the world and trying to see all they could before being bludgeoned back into their everyday lives.
And so it was that at the back of my mind my old friend "status anxiety" began to kick in. My cousins are all younger than me, but despite this seem to have achieved far greater things than I. One, in particular, has virtually travelled the world now, speaks two languages fluently, has written a book and will probably be involved in organising events throughout next year's Olympic Games when they arrive in jolly old Britain. I could not help but feel, then, a slight twinge of not just status anxiety, but the plain old green-eyed monster himself, jealousy.
But then, a feeling of unassailable hope overtook me. They had all grown into such nice people, and they all made me feel, despite knowing about my own troublesome and unhealthy past, welcome and indeed, somewhat pampered. It kind of warmed my cockles (ooh err, missus) to know that none of them even paid the slightest attention to what I have been diagnosed with, and I was to them just "David", a member of their extended family.
So, if any of them ever read this blog, may I wish Ruth, Beth, Peter and Tom all the very best for this year. And particularly to Tom, as he has had to put up with health problems of his own for the last few years. And to their parents also, who I have known since I was born, really, and have always been generous and supportive and who remind me often of years gone by when things seemed so much simpler and the older generation of our family was still around.
Basically, then, it's warm and fuzzies all round, and now that it's all over I think I'm feeling confident that 2011 will be a good year, despite, to end on a political note, the unnecessarily severe and stringent cuts being made by old Dave Cameron and his government. A friend of mine recently referred to the now incumbents as the "bankocracy" and feels that the cuts being made are not only unnecessary, but are a way of undermining the welfare state, a process which he refers to, in true Marxist fashion, as a process of "accumulation by dispossession". But let's not let that deter from the positivity I feel. After all, with students now enraged, who knows how many others will be, and as my friend said- "aux barricades"!
That's all for now from your normal, average paranoid and delusional man.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 98: Are We Having Fun Yet?

2010-12-15T03:08:00.000-08:00

So it's the Christmas season again, and at the risk of beginning to repeat myself ad infinitum I will state once again my message from last year (and the year before that, and before that...) So here it is, Merry Christmas, everybody's havin' fun, or are they?
I guess those of you who read this blog will know my stance on Christmas. I suppose I feel that the real message of Christmas has been lost in a haze of mass consumerism and mindless materialism, and as we all drudge through the shopping malls like drones buying up gifts for others and fully expecting one back in return, it is, I suppose, obvious that some of us will just feel a little alienated from the whole affair.
For those who suffer from mental illness such feelings can be acute. More likely to be isolated from society and to be, in some instances, estranged from family and friends, the very thought of Christmas, with its emphasis on family and hearth and home, can be enough to send some into a relapse. For them, it seems, the best policy is often ignoring the whole thing, hoping that things don't get too bad, and hopefully emerging after all the festivities relatively unscathed.
However, we are all susceptible to a little stress at Christmas and I was recently part of a health promotion in our local area, along with another member of the Pathways Group, which involved giving out information on how we can all relieve stress at this demanding time. Such things as just taking some time for yourself to listen to music, read, or enjoy a hot bath, can alleviate some of the pressures we feel. Perhaps it is prudent that we all look after ourselves in this way, as I believe that things such as calls to The Samaritans dramatically increase during the festive period, and of course we all know of the stresses and strains of having to entertain relatives or in-laws we would otherwise not give the time of day to.
So, as Christmas approaches, I simply ask, in a variation on my usual message- are we having fun yet? If the answer is no, perhaps try some of the stress-busting methods I have mentioned. It must be said that drinking and smoking heavily are not answers to taking such stress away, and although our alcohol intake probably goes up throughout this time, it invariably causes more problems than it solves and, indeed, increased use of such drugs is an indicator of stress, not a reliever of it. So, particularly to those who suffer from mental ill health, the alienated and the lonely, I wish you a not too unpleasant time. For the rest of you who may be reading this blog, may I wish you all a very merry, not too stressful Christmas.
That's all for now from your normal, average delusional and paranoid man.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 97: Mental Health and Social and Economic Deprivation.

2010-12-08T10:28:00.000-08:00

It's been quite a while since my last blog, so I'm sure you're all waiting in eager anticipation for whatever crumbs of wisdom and insight you may pick up from my abundant intellectual table. OK, so maybe I exaggerate. Maybe I even "big myself up" to ludicrous and grandiose proportions, as during my illness I was wont to do. But the theme of time running by has lately been of interest to me as I have just passed my 39th birthday. So, given my propensity for being both mentally and physically unwell, I feel it is good to bear in mind that, to use that over-used phrase, "time waits for no man". In consideration of that, here is yet another blog for your delectation.
As this is a blog primarily about mental health, then, it is fitting that my subject be, erm, mental health. And, as you may have gleaned from the somewhat sober title, it is about the link between social and economic deprivation and mental ill health.
Being from Stoke-on-Trent, we at the Pathways Group are no strangers to a little social and economic deprivation, as, it seems, Stoke is often near the top of the list in terms of these criteria. Indeed, in a recent document by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, entitled "No Health without Public Mental Health: The Case for Action", the link between social and economic deprivation and mental ill health was made clear, it stating that mental ill health "is consistently associated with deprivation, low income, unemployment, poor education, poorer physical health and increased health risk behaviour." And, Stoke-on-Trent scores consistently highly on this list of criteria, with 14% of the area's populace being unemployed or unable to work, 23% lacking any educational qualifications, and a massive 46% of private households classified as being in fuel poverty. The risk, therefore, of an increased number of people facing mental ill health in my own locality would appear to be significant.
Perhaps significantly, also, the Royal College of Psychiatrist's document would seem to fly in the face of the purely medical model of psychiatry, stating, as it does, that such environmental factors have a great deal of impact on mental ill health. It has always been my belief that environmental factors should be taken into consideration when accounting for any one's mental ill health, as well as the purely genetic or biochemical factors. To be fair to mental health services, this is usually the approach taken, but in the treatment of psychoses, at least in this country, the purely medical model seems to prevail. The prescribing of anti-psychotic medication seems always, then, to be the first option explored, assuaging, as it does, the chemical imbalances in the brain which the medical model sees as the major cause of illness. However, in a recent book, "Psychotherapeutic Approaches to Schizophrenic Psychoses: Past, Present and Future", it is shown how psychotherapy has been and is being used to treat psychosis, ranging from traditional Freudian approaches to cognitive behavioral therapy and indeed, almost any other human intervention. Indeed, the book shows that in other countries, such as Finland, psychological approaches have become far more established than in the UK, with neuroleptic medication being used cautiously, for shorter periods and in lower doses than in most industrialised countries. This is a refreshing approach to my mind, as it would appear to take away the risk of the often harmful and physically unhealthy side-effects of such medication.
Ideed, it would seem that many have seen the potentially damaging effects of social and economic deprivation on our health. Even as far back as the writing of Engels, as the newly industrialised cities began to appear, he remarked that there was "something in the turmoil of (their) streets against which human nature rebels."
Further to this, the one-time celebrity psychiatrist Oliver James seems to have constructed, in various books, a whole thesis that mental ill health is not just affected by environmental factors, but more specifically by the very system of advanced Capitalism itself. Citing such things as the endless competitiveness and the inducement of "status anxiety" which the system promotes, he believes that our way of life is an inherently unhealthy one.
So, when speaking of mental ill health, it is perhaps always apt to remember environmental factors such as social and economic deprivation, as it seems that they are just as important as biochemical or genetic factors in inducing mental illness. And only by doing something in these areas, which some suggest may mean a whole re-evaluation of our current way of life, can we hope to begin to redress the increased risk of mental ill health in areas like my own beloved Stoke.
That's all for now from your normal, average, delusional and paranoid man.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 96: Being Different.

2010-11-24T05:19:00.000-08:00

I have just finished reading "Brave New World", Aldous Huxley's account of a future society where human beings are no longer born, but genetically "produced" and socially conditioned so that they fit, unquestioningly, into the roles given them. So, there are those who are "manufactured" to be less intelligent and so perform only menial tasks, where others, the so-called "Alphas", are engineered to be more intelligent and therefore take on more demanding roles. What is important, however, is that they are all conditioned to be "happy" in their allotted roles, and none envy either their superiors or inferiors. Indeed, the status quo is maintained by keeping the populace distracted with almost enforced sexual promiscuity and the promulgation of a drug, "soma", which seems to induce an unthinking state of pleasure.
However, into this scenario comes Bernard Marx, an "alpha" who begins to question the nature of his society. Marx is beset with questions about why things are as they are, and as a result of his questioning, there is a rumour that something went wrong with his conditioning. Indeed, he is increasingly seen as "different" from others of his station, and as a result he is lonely and frustrated. Add to this Bernard's relationship with a "savage" named John, a person who was "born", rather than "produced", and who has a fondness for Shakespeare. John previously lived on one of the "savage reservations", but was himself, being more intelligent than the other savages (that is "born" rather than "produced" people), somewhat alienated from the culture in which he found himself. So, when Marx brings John into his own apparent utopia, the stage is set for a tragic denouement.
The book came over to me, then, as as much a treatise on being different and alienated from one's environment as it is about the tyranny of a future society, and this got me thinking about how we treat difference in our own society. Indeed, more and more, I came to feel that Huxley's vision of the future perhaps had a deep resonance with our own culture.
For instance, many philosophers, particularly those of a Marxist bent, would feel that the "self", far from being the manifestation of our own individual thoughts and feelings, is rather culturally produced: it is the product of our own form of social conditioning. For Marx, this social conditioning comes in the form of ideology, forming a sort of prism through which we see the world. Others, like Foucault, use the term "discourse" to describe the set of practices, assumptions and views which govern a certain age. According to such philosophers we are, then,"conditioned", not in the very visible way Huxley's book describes, but almost subconsciously, soaking up whatever societal norms are prevalent at a given time. Indeed, Althusser, in his paper "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" showed how the individual is conditioned through various arms of the state, such as school.
The way we are conditioned, then, is perhaps more subtle than Huxley's very obvious way, but in his foreword to the book he seems to hit on a point which may have resonated with these other philosophers, and that is the essential problem of authority, of how to get people to, essentially, be akin to slaves, without them realising or being unhappy with it. For Foucault it is the subconscious conditioning of discourse which provides the answer, as, he states, "how could we seek to be slaves".
I'm sure, though, that if you asked any average person in the West if they were free, they would say yes. But is this the case, given the arguments above. Indeed, such arguments seem to raise the question of whether freedom, or freedom of thought, is even possible, even in the most ostensibly "free" societies.
This is where some might feel that, perhaps, madness is the only true freedom there is. By experiencing psychosis, for example, we somehow shed our social identity and conditioning and we literally lose our previous sense of self, and by doing so, experience some form of Dionysian abandon, at last a true freedom. It is, then, by becoming "different" that we are inevitably labelled "mad". In fact, in Huxley's book, the old cultural practices of the savages are seen as not only disgusting, but "mad" by the new breed of human. However, those who feel that madness does provide us with a certain freedom must, I think, in the end, recognise that one can not possibly function in society when feeling this way. All practicalities, it seems, go out of the window when we are in a psychotic state, or, as a friend of mine succinctly put it, such freedom leaves us with one important question- who's going to buy lunch? Furthermore, in Saul Bellow's account of one young man's exploration of freedom and choice, "Dangling Man", the main character, after having nothing to do for the entire novel eventually enters the army, stating emphatically, "I am no longer to be held accountable for myself; I am grateful for that. I am in other hands, relieved of self-determination, freedom cancelled. Hurray for regular hours! And for the supervision of the spirit! Long live regimentation!" So, would freedom, if we truly knew it, actually live up to our expectations?
But, to return to my previous point, one only has to look at how difference is treated to see that we are more like Huxley's society than perhaps we would choose to admit. For instance, in terms of mental health alone, being diagnosed with mental ill health can mean entering a whole new world. As Rufus May, at one time himself diagnosed with schizophrenia and now a radical psychologist suggests, having been diagnosed as having psychotic experiences one automatically enters into what he terms a "taboo identity". Indeed, the same has been true of race or sexuality, and it is only with time and changes in discourse or ideology that such differences are finally acknowledged by and included in the larger society.
However, we all know that discrimination, prejudice and stigma over being different is difficult to eradicate. Indeed, the creation of stigma is known to happen in almost all cultures. And so it is that perhaps Claude Levi-Strauss was most accurate in his description of why difference seems to be so unaccepted:
"...it would seem that the diversity of cultures has seldom been recognized by men for what it is - a natural phenomenon resulting from the direct or indirect contrasts between societies; men have tended rather to regard diversity as something abnormal or outrageous...The attitude of longest standing which no doubt has a firm psychological foundation...is to reject out of hand the cultural institutions - ethical, religions, social or aesthetic which are furthest removed from those with which we identify. 'Barbarous habits', 'not what we do', 'ought not to be allowed', etc. are all crude reactions indicative of the same instinctive antipathy, the same repugnance for ways of life, thought or belief with which we are unaccustomed...Faced with the two temptations of condemning things which are offensive to him emotionally, or of denying differences which are beyond his intellectual grasp, modern man has launched out on countless lines of philosophical and sociological speculation in a vain attempt...to account for the diversity of cultures, while seeking, at the same time, to eradicate what still shocks and offends him in that diversity."
So, it seems that being hostile to difference is almost a part of human nature. We all know, however, that such things as tolerance and understanding can be nurtured. Perhaps that is our only hope that being different will eventually be accepted. Perhaps that is our only hope of creating a real "brave new world that has such people in it".
That's all for now from your normal, average delusional and paranoid man.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 95: Taking the Pace.

2010-11-17T02:15:00.000-08:00

So, there I was, sitting in one of the cardiology wards at the North Staffs General Hospital, stripped down to my underpants and wearing one of those NHS gowns which give the whole world a wonderful view of one's, erm, rear end. As I sat there, I began to wonder just why I had ended up where I was, waiting, along with other heart patients (who, by the way, were all invariably older than me) to have a pacemaker fitted into my heart. OK, so I have to acknowledge that I have had a problem with my heart since birth; what is known as a heart block, which has resulted in me having an unusually low heart-rate and an occasional defect in the way my heart beats. Despite this, though, I had had none of the usual problems that appear to go along with such heart defects, such as blacking out or breathlessness. I had also started exercising and was losing weight (around four stones in all) and was feeling generally healthier than I had done in a long time. So, why, I wondered, had my cardiologist chosen now as the time to fit me with a pacemaker?
Well, as the wonderful and omnipotent doctor who was to perform my operation explained, in his erudite opinion, all those with a heart block should have a pacemaker fitted as they begin to get a little older. Perhaps it was a preventative rather than curative measure, then, as it would reduce my risk of having either a heart attack or black-outs in the future. My weight, he explained, could also be a problem, as although I have lost a great deal of the old adipose tissue, I am still, although in a reduced way, what they call, obese. Indeed, I remember my GP telling me that it was my weight which was putting my little ticker "under some strain" and it also resulted in me having high blood pressure, for which I now have to take medication.
So, in some convoluted way, this goes back to one of the side-effects of my anti-psychotic medication, which is to induce weight gain. I have mentioned many times in these pages my resentment of the side-effects caused by my medication, and indeed, in some quarters, it seems that people are beginning to wonder whether modern anti-psychotics really are any better than their old-fashioned counterparts. Those with diagnoses of psychotic illness still tend to die at a much younger age than those who have apparently good mental health, on average ten years younger and, although we have our own sedentary life-styles and bad habits to blame for this, perhaps it is that side-effects of medication can further complicate matters.
I have to say that the main reason for my pacemaker being fitted, though, was my heart block, but, it is being realised by many in the mental health profession that the physical health of their patients is also important. Recently I attended a conference, at which me and another member of the Pathways Group spoke, called "Physical Health Matters in Mental Health". The conference served as a salutary reminder to professionals that they should not neglect the physical health of their service users, as it can be that the effects of their illnesses, bad habits such as smoking, and as I have mentioned, side-effects of medication, often endanger the physical well being of those diagnosed with such conditions. Also, it is a recognised element of the discrimination faced by those with mental ill health that their physical health can sometimes be overlooked in their treatment.
So, now it is that, having gone through a period of mental ill health where I hardly saw my GP at all, I now see him on a regular basis, at his request. I am, overall then, pleased by this interest and intervention, and I am, perhaps, after all, pleased that I have had my pacemaker fitted now to avoid any further complications in the future. It seems, now, that I will be able to take the pace of my more active life-style and my very real fears about the state of my physical health have been allayed.
That's all for now from your normal, average, delusional and paranoid man.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 94: Get Over Yourself, or, The Blog- A Story of Self-Obsession.

2010-11-10T23:44:00.000-08:00

I don't know whether it's me, but I have come to notice something of a trait in the blogs I sometimes read. Many of them are from that beautiful country that is America, or as F. Scott Fitzgerald once put it, the place where "man must have held his breath" when first surveying its vastness and beauty.

I find America a fascinating place- after all, it is home to most of the movies that I watch, the books I read, the television I routinely ingest. I would love to visit the place, and find its populace, from my own limited experience, to be a charming, friendly bunch. So, when it is that something goes awry with America, I feel it. Just, it seems, as the rest of the world feels it, or, as the old axiom goes, "when America catches a cold, we get the flu".

So you will forgive me for pointing out something that I feel is unhealthy in the American psyche of today, an unhealthiness that is indeed reflected in blog land, and that is, what I feel to be, a pernicious obsession with the self.

I can't think of many blogs from the land of the free and home of the brave, and, indeed, from my own country, that don't reflect this tendency. Almost everyone, it seems, has a "journey", and they are forever willing to tell us about it. The subject of the blogs often seems to be the authors themselves, their discontents and misfortunes and also their joys, but mostly their discontents. It is as if life, or the world at large, doesn't really exist, to the extent that, when someone once wrote a really interesting blog from America about politics and entertainment (and suggested that the two were inter-related), the said blogger actually gave up writing it, because no one actually read it. On the other hand, examining your nasal hair or belly-button fluff (metaphorically speaking) with endless reams of soul-searching and introspection seems endlessly fascinating to many.

Indeed, such writings seem to have their own language, and particular words have crept in to our own English idiom. Words like the above-mentioned, ubiquitous "journey". Or, for example, words like "empowerment" and "closure". Now, I can't help feeling that when you are confined by a certain use of language, your brain becomes confined too. I believe it was Wittgenstein who said that language defines the boundaries of consciousness and that we just keep running up against the bars of our own cages. So, if language essentially creates a mindset, then these terms seem to veritably encourage one which focuses on the self as the centre of all things.

Perhaps, however, we have to look further afield for where, at least philosophically, this all began, and I think it was that Chinese master of the banal statement masquerading as profundity, Confucius, who intimated that in order to change the world, you must first change yourself. The self, then, becomes the locus of everything, and it seems to me, that particularly in America, people have taken this teaching on board to a damaging degree.

But, why would I think that it's damaging? Well, for a start, in terms just of mental health, the American obsession with therapy has gone too far. In my blog "American Madness" I pointed out the truly insane degree to which psychiatry has gone in the States to "diagnose" people, in this case, children, with varying degrees of mental ill health. It seemed to me that most of these kids were just normal, if a little exuberant, and yet had been given labels and even in some cases were having to cope with stigma. No one looked to environmental causes for their challenging behaviour. No, it was all just the manifestation of the children's personalities, which in these cases, and in my view erroneously, were given actual diagnoses of pathology to account for their slightly rebellious conduct.

Moreover, America seems to have become the land of "self-help". My friend, who is given to follow some of the "teachings" she finds in self-help books, has even herself noted that the vast majority of them come from America. Again, the "self" is the locus of all and one particular "teaching", which my friend follows, called the "law of attraction", would have you believe that whatever happens in your life, you have somehow attracted it. Doesn't matter if it's cancer or schizophrenia, you have somehow (by "default", my friend explains, as no one would actively wish some terrible disease upon themselves) "attracted" it. Thus, you can conversely, by somehow manipulating the law of attraction through positive thought, "attract" good things instead- the car you want, that necklace you so admire, the house you want, etc, etc. It is tacitly made out that the "law of attraction" is some sort of real physical property of the universe, and only by using it to our advantage do we end up not being some kind of shit magnet.

Well, I don't know about you, but I have many problems with such "teachings", not least that their ostensible "spirituality" seems to mask the fact that all you would appear to want is material things and material things make you happy.

Which kind of brings me to my final point. All this me-ness, I believe, kind of makes people very compliant to whatever political system they may be living in. By continually focusing on the self as the locus of change, doesn't that mean that we neglect the faults of our society, our environment, our political and economic life? It reminds me of a joke I saw in the Woody Allen film "Manhattan", in which Woody is attending a party full of wealthy liberal types, and one woman says that she is concerned about some pro-Nazi groups that have recently been marching in the city, but that her concerns have been allayed by the fact that someone has written a "biting political satire" about the situation. Woody's response to this is, "well, if you're talking about Nazis you don't need satire, what you really need is baseball bats". And therein, ladies and gentlemen, lies the rub. With all this naval-gazing and introspection and finding the fault to be within ourselves, I think we run the risk of neglecting the fact that society itself or the political and economic situation in which we find ourselves is at fault and what needs to be changed, and I don't think you do this by becoming some kind of zen master, but rather by actively engaging with the world. Try telling the Chinese populace, for example, that if only they looked within themselves, things would all be OK.

So, I think, particularly as we grow older, it is healthy to recognise that there are things bigger than ourselves and our little "journeys". We should, I think, as the author and philosopher Iris Murdoch once said, allow the self to recede and the world to exist. In other words, it may be time to get over ourselves (to use another Americanism) and become a little less self-obsessed and a little more aware of the world.

That's all for now from your normal, average, delusional and paranoid man.

P.S. I would just say that I would include myself in my own criticisms, and that I may be generalising, particularly about the American blog. It just seems to me that we have entered an age in the West where solipsism seems to have replaced any real engagement with the world. You, of course, are free to disagree.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 93: It's a New Dawn, It's a New Day, It's a New-Look Blog.

2010-11-03T19:17:00.000-07:00

So, I got a little tired of the look of my blog. It was, after all, very basic and when I looked on other blogs I couldn't help but envy their little gadgets and pictures and twisty-turny moving things. OK, so I'm a bit of a Luddite when it comes to computers, but I think you might agree that this is something of an improvement on the look of my last blog. I have added a few gadgets together with a new template which has a suitably psychotropic-looking background. I suppose I like the warm colours of this particular template, and being an expert (sort of, in fact, not at all) on the psychology of colour, I know that yellow is an "emotional" colour, inspiring feelings of warm fuzziness, as opposed to say, green or blue, which are supposed to invoke calm, but in my view seem a little cold.
Speaking of computers, though, I must add that on Monday evening the Pathways Group had a night out to a pub in Stoke where there was something called a "social media surgery" held. The group has bought a PC with money from the Bennett Centre's benevolent fund and we wanted to start up our own web-site, hence the trip to the social media surgery to try to find out how to do this. Luckily, while there, we met up with a girl named Claire, who was very non-Luddite like in her handling of computers. In fact, she showed us a web-site which, much like "blogger", allows you to build up your own web-site using a template and inserting links, posts, pictures, etc. So, the Pathways Group is now on the way to starting up its own web-site.
I have to say that I am really enjoying our little group at the moment. It is beginning to evolve in ways that we wouldn't have thought possible and, being user-led, is something of a step forward in the way mental health services practice. However, I have to thank all of the "facilitators" in the group for always giving us a hand in making our ideas for the group a reality. Indeed, our new web-site, when it is up and running, will hopefully convey all the positivity, friendship and camaraderie there is in the group and give out a message of hope to others- that despite long-term or severe mental ill health, and even with the most damaging diagnoses which have the worst prognoses, recovery is possible and things can be achieved. No longer does schizophrenia necessarily mean an inevitable demise into worsening ill health, but a possible, even if slow and sometimes faltering, recovery.
So, it's not just a new-look blog, but a new dawn, a new day and a new life for many of us.
That's all for now from your normal, average delusional and paranoid man.
P.S. This is just a quick "hello" to Cath, who is a long-time member of the Pathways Group and may be logging on soon to this blog for the very first time using our computer. Best Wishes, duck, and may you have many happy hours surfing the net!

Dave's Progress. Chapter 92: A Mindbloggling 100.

2010-10-31T02:03:00.000-07:00

This is an easy post for me to write as all it is really is a self-congratulatory pat on the back for this being my 100th posting on the blogging network. But wait, I here you say, "Dave's Progress" has only reached chapter 92. Aha, I say, I wrote 8 posts previous to the development of the idea of calling my posts "Dave's Progress", hence the magic figure of 100.
So, how did this all begin? Well, I started blogging due to my involvement with the Media Action Group for Mental Health, who, in around 2007, began a project called "Mindbloggling". The aim was to get volunteers to blog about their experience of mental ill health, hoping that this would produce a firm anti-stigma message. Unfortunately the project came to an end and many discontinued writing their blogs. Now, I think, although you can still access the list of blogs that were written for the project via the MAGMH web-site, there are only two bloggers remaining- one being yours truly, and the other being my hirsute, hippy, happy friend, Gary aka klahanie. We have continued blogging despite the ending of "Mindbloggling" and, indeed, the blogs, particularly Gary's, seem to have developed lives of their own.
My blog, then, was intended to reflect what it is like coming to terms and living with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, while at the same time trying to get across the anti-stigma message. How successful I have been in this is for others to judge, but I do know that many topics have been covered throughout my 100 postings. From the side-effects of medication, to the problems inherent in disclosing one's mental ill health, to the possibility of re-naming schizophrenia, the topics covered have been wide-ranging and it is now that I almost feel I have exhausted the subject.
So, as my blogging has progressed, I believe so have I. I have now had over five years of good mental health- no stays in hospital, no residual symptoms, nothing. I have learned to manage and cope with the illness, to the extent that I feel the label of "schizophrenia" really no longer applies to me. How much this has to do with the stigma associated with that term I don't really know. I know I have experienced the symptoms of that illness in the past, and people tell me that there is no cure, it is a chronic condition which can be "controlled" with medication, and like an addict, you are in perpetual "recovery". As I continue to get better, though, admittedly with the help of medication, I wonder why it is that I should labour under the stigmatizing term of schizophrenia for the rest of my life. To me, I am not "in recovery", but resolutely "recovered" and I hope this blog has gone some way to demystifying the illness and also confounding the stereotypes so often associated with it.
I am, after all, still just your normal, average, paranoid and delusional man.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 91: The Geek, C'est Chic.

2010-10-25T03:40:00.000-07:00

I have noticed a recent trend in the movies, particularly those from the States, in which the eternaly losing, downtrodden, alienated, lonely male, also known as the "geek", has begun to be seen not just in the odd cameo appearance, but as the major character. Indeed, actors like Jesse Eisenberg and Michael Cera seem to have cornered the market in playing geeks who appear, at last, to come out on top. These actors, themselves a little geeky-looking, have taken lead roles in many movies which actively seem to celebrate geekdom.
There are many examples of films which have recently shown this trend, most of them starring either Cera or Eisenberg. "Superbad", "Youth in Revolt", "Fanboys", "Zombieland", "Adventureland", "Kick-Ass" and "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" all seem to have geeks as their main protagonists and, unlike before in the movies where the geek was often seen being ritually humiliated, he has now become a winner. Yes, he gets the girl or defeats evil in some form and comes off best. There even seems to have been a revolution in the representation of girl geekdom, with actors like Ellen Page appearing in films such as "Whip It", Drew Barrymore's directorial debut.
So, what has brought about this re-evaluation of the geek? Well, the geek has always been portrayed as a nice, sensitive creature, albeit something of an outcast one. Perhaps, then, it is truly time that the geek got his revenge, dramatically speaking. More and more, it seems, audiences are coming to relate to those who don't follow the crowd and are, essentially, just normal human beings. We would appear to be tired of the sports "jock" and frat-boy bullies who regularly get away with appalling behaviour. Now we want to see the loser-guy winning for a change.
Indeed, there seems to be something at the very root of our psyche, both here and in the States, that loves to see the under-dog come out on top. Perhaps Roland Barthes, the French literary theorist and philosopher hit something on the head in an essay he wrote about wrestling. In it, he suggested that people, particularly those of the more oppressed classes, loved wrestling because it had the appearance of justice. In the ring, he argued, "good" is pitted against "evil" in the form of the two wrestlers, and for once, such is the essentially dramatic nature of wrestling, "good" invariably wins, despite the underhand tactics of "evil", and justice is served. Barthes argued that in the ring, the world then finally made sense, whereas in reality, the world does not obey such strict rules, and justice is rarely made so manifest. Perhaps it is the same principle with the geek. He has been downtrodden for too long and it is only now just that he gets his own way.
Lastly, I don't think you can underestimate the rise and rise of the geek in real life when accounting for his recent popularity. All those nerdy computer guys from the 80s and 90s now appear to be multi-billionaires. Just look at Bill Gates, a geek if ever there was one, who now must be one of the most powerful and influential people in the world and has taken to giving away his money (because he has so much of it) in a whirl of philanthropy. Now, even, there is a film about the inventor of "Facebook", Mark Zuckerberg, suitably played by the uber-geek Eisenberg, which is all set to receive Oscars. In the film, though, the geek is no longer a cuddly, sensitive chap, but a somewhat cold, determined go-getter who is willing to do almost anything to get what he wants. Could this be yet another twist in the tale, as power goes to the geek's head?
So, at the moment, the geek seems to reign supreme. I hope that this reflects a new-found respect for difference and diversity, as audiences, perhaps sick of the traditional perfect hero, flock instead to see the one-time loser win at last. All I really know is, though, that currently, the geek, c'est chic.
That's all for now from your normal, average, paranoid and delusional man.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 90: Psychotic vs. Psychopathic- A Common Misunderstanding.

2010-10-21T18:01:00.000-07:00

I'm sorry to bang on about this, as it is a point I have probably mentioned in previous posts. It is just that this particular misunderstanding about mental ill health is so prevalent that I think it probably deserves one last, hopefully exhaustive explanation. I am, of course, referring to the seemingly ubiquitous mistake made, particularly in the media and (mostly American) films, where the terms "psychotic" and "psychopathic" become confused.
To make it clear, and as far as I know, "psychosis" or being "psychotic" simply refers to a set of symptoms, such as delusions, hallucinations, illusions, becoming withdrawn and flattening of affect. In psychosis, there is no inherent link to violent or criminal behaviour, but more of a break from "reality". Psychosis can occur in illnesses as wide-ranging as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression. "Psychopathic", however, refers to a particular type of personality disorder, I believe also referred to as "sociopathic" or "anti-social" in which there is no break with reality and, although it pains me to say this, there is a link to violence. Despite this massive difference, these terms, perhaps because of the prefix "psycho" and its stigmatizing associations, are often used interchangeably.
If I give just a few examples: in "The Observer" newspaper, the habitually violent, criminal character played by Joe Pesci in the film "Goodfellas" was described by the resident film critic as "psychotic". So, this mistake is not confined to the red-tops, but also the apparently liberal, intelligent broadsheets. In the film "Scream", Neve Campbell's character describes the killer, who goes around routinely stabbing innocent teenagers, as "psychotic". And, only the other week, on "Mastermind", of all things, the "psychopathic" character of Thomas Harris' novels and many films, Hannibal Lecter, was similarly described as being "psychotic". Even a piece of junk-mail I received from "Benson's World" video and dvd company described the child killer in Fritz Lang's masterpiece "M" as "psychotic". So, this error seems to be all over the place.
Perhaps the main reason this bothers me (after all, you might think, why be so pedantic, it's only a word?) is because if people like the Campaign for the Abolition of the Schizophrenia label get their way, the name for the illness which has plagued me for some twenty years may be re-named something like "post-traumatic psychosis". So, if this term continues to be misused, the erroneous assumption that there is an inherent link between schizophrenia and violence will continue, despite the re-naming. It is a well researched fact, after all, that misunderstanding leads to a misattribution of anti-social behaviours, and therefore, stigma.
So, I hope, once and for all, I have cleared up this confusion for you and you will all now go about being good anti-stigma campaigners, and point out to people when they are making this mistake. OK, so maybe I'm being optimistic. But, this would have a very real effect, if the research is to be trusted, and make a lot of people's lives easier.
So, it's back to the old subject for now, but rest assured I will return, after the responses I got for my last post, with another, perhaps lighter and different topic. Maybe I could take to infusing the quotidian with comedic flourishes, like my pal klahanie, who gets away with making talking about things like radiators, washing-machines, toasters, and bog-roll entertaining. I guess you'll just have to wait and see.
But, that's all for now from your normal, average, delusional and paranoid man.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 89: That Obscure Object of Desire.

2010-10-14T22:43:00.000-07:00

The above title is taken from Luis Bunuel's 1977 film of the same name, in which a wealthy, middle-class Frenchman, Mathieu, is continually frustrated in his romantic and sexual advances towards a beautiful, poor Spanish dancer from Seville named Conchita. In their relationship, Conchita avoids sexual contact with Mathieu, bringing him to the point of such frustration that he eventually beats her. Things wouldn't be so bad had he not first witnessed her dancing naked in a bar and then having sex with another man. She tries to explain these things away as innocently as she can, but Mathieu remains a teased and frustrated figure. The film, then, comes across as a surreal comedy (two different actresses play the role of Conchita, seeming to underline Mathieu's confusion), but as always with Bunuel there is an element of political subversion to the film, with the romance, if it can be called that, taking place against a backdrop of left-wing terrorist insurgence, and at the end the two meet their apparent deaths in a terrorist bombing.
I have used this as the title of my post, because it appears to me that there is another obscure object of desire currently being fed in to our homes via the TV, and its name is Nigella Lawson.
Oh, Nigella, Nigella, Nigella, why do you tease us so? Indeed, Nigella's latest programme being screened on BBC2 is, of course, ostensibly about food, but as a certain scene in a movie from the '60s, "Tom Jones", attests, eating can often come across as a vaguely disguised sexual experience. And Nigella, whether she does this deliberately or unknowingly, seems to turn cooking and eating into a highly sensuous, even erotic undertaking, and one can just imagine the effect she induces in well-off, middle-class males like Mathieu as she explains, in her slightly husky, sexy voice, just how you make things like marmite spaghetti. Yes, she even makes that sound irresistible. Even I sat transfixed when I watched the last edition of her programme, eventually succumbing to the charms of this self-proclaimed domestic goddess.
So, just what is it that makes Nigella so desirable? Is it that, admittedly, beautiful face, which considering her parentage (her Dad is sometime figure of the Thatcher administrations Nigel Lawson) is something bordering on the miraculous? All I can say is, she must take after her Mum. Is it that husky voice which often lapses into proclamations which can only be described as poetic? On the programme I saw, for example, she described the ingredients of a particular cake she was baking as having a colour similar "to the brown, Mexican earth". Or is it, ladies and gentlemen, the very way in which the programme is filmed? I think, for my part, it is here that things are made truly erotic. Although it has to be said that Nigella is innately photogenic and good looking, it is those certain close-ups, first on the eyes, then the mouth, then on to that comely figure, that seem to enhance Nigella's sexual appeal. And, it seems, Nigella doesn't just love the camera, she veritably flirts with it. A gaze deep in to the lens here, a flick of the hair there, or a slightly coquettish tilt of the head, all lead us to believe that Nigella is playing with us, and we are veritable putty in her hands.
Only thing is, as Nigella flirts away, and we get evermore distracted from the food and on to her, or perhaps as we watch her actually eating her food (oh joy of joys!), we slowly realise that Nigella is a married lady. Yes, and to that incredibly wealthy man, Charles Saatchi- you know, used to be big in advertising, now famous as a collector of "BritArt". So, it seems, however you may feel about Nigella, however much you may think she is actually flirting with you, it seems she will remain only a distant, erotic pleasure.
So, I'm sorry to disappoint those of you who were expecting another diatribe about mental illness in this blog, but I really didn't know what to write about this time. Only thing I know is, I will be tuning in to Nigella's new programme next week, as she slowly becomes my own obscure object of desire.
That's all for now from your normal, average, paranoid and delusional man.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 88: History, it seems, is Written by the Winners.

2010-10-06T12:02:00.000-07:00

In response to the recent Tory conference, I would just like to say that it appears to me that history is being somewhat rewritten. Like other Tory governments (oh, I forgot, this is a coalition, but who can blame me as the Liberals seem to have retracted every bloody meaningful policy they had in pursuit of power) propaganda does not seem beneath them, and it seems to me that we are being fed an historical narrative by Cameron and his ilk that is simply untrue, particularly in terms of our recent economic hardships.
The line being fed to us by Cameron and his sickly side-kick George Osbourne (indeed, every time my Mum sees Osbourne on the telly it has an almost physical, emetic effect on her) is that "the state we're in" has been caused by an over-spending and capricious Labour Party, who did little to curb the extravagances of the bankers who seem to have been at the root of all this mess. The Conservative Party, in some quarters, have even gone to the lengths of bringing back old memories of things like the "Winter of discontent" to bang home their point.
However, if truth be told, it was really the Thatcher/Reagan era that brought about all the deregulation of the market that was eventually responsible for our economic downfall in the West. Surely you remember? It was an era when "greed was good", to quote the character Gordon Gecko in the film "Wall Street". OK , so fair enough, "New Labour" did little to stem this rampant inequity, or should I say, iniquity. But the root of it, and where it all started, was most definitely not with the Labour Party, but with the Tories. And now, it seems, we are being sold the lemon that it was all Labour's fault. Just look, and you will see history being re-written before your very eyes. We all have such short memory spans, after all- we can, it seems, only concentrate for fifteen minutes at a time, just about the same time we think we'll be famous for. But might I just remind you of a quote from Milan Kundera, the novelist who lived through Communist rule in his native Czechoslovakia: "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting".
Now, the Tories have said they will be stopping child benefit for those earning above £44,000 in the year 2013. For once, I capitulate. For once, I concur. But, what a huge hue and cry this has caused. Middle-class mothers and some of the press have stated what an unfair move this is to make, and Cameron even appeared to have to justify why this new policy was being made. God forbid, after all, that the more well-off in society should do their bit in the face of our economic crisis. I did not notice the same outcry when Cameron announced that he was going to re-test everyone on Incapacity Benefit. After all, we're all just losers, scroungers and downright good-for-nothings that are getting something we don't deserve.
Indeed, Cameron and his party have reignited the division made between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor, first made in the Victorian era and then later by Margaret Thacher. In all this, though, Cameron's watchword has been "fairness". But just how do you delineate between who is deserving and who not, and if "fairness" is key to your policy, just how far are you willing to take it? Are the Tory Party, for example, willing to increase taxes on the very rich, perhaps by increasing inheritance tax? No, I didn't think so.
Anyway, all this invective aside, one prominent intellectual figure, Slavov Zizek, has announced in his latest book, "Living in the End Times", that the overall Capitalist system may be about to implode.
Well, I don't know about you, but if it means a fairer and more equitable society, then I'm with you brother. Even if it means destroying our present system, then I'm all for it. After all, it's either that, or dissolve in to some form of middle-class entropy, where the only votes that count are the votes of Middle England. Which kind of reminds me, I once wrote a poem about this kind of stuff, and as I have not printed one in these pages for quite some time, I thought I would do so here. So, here goes, and the poem is called "The Death of History":

Got my house,
Got my car,
I like to drive,
But I don't drive far.

Well I call it a house but it's really a home,
Wife and two point four kids,
A dog with a bone,
A cellular 'phone.

I work hard but I like to have fun,
And it's easy out here in the sticks,
Away from the scum,
My money separates me from them.

But most of all I have no politics,
Don't believe in dialectics,
Don't believe there's any ideology,
And this might be the death of history.

Can't believe that what I'm living has been arrived at,
That the past informs all our lives,
All I know is things are as they are,
I think I can see but I can't see far.

Can't see that knowledge might eat way the mysteries of the ellipses of night,
I like my apolitical bubble,
And even when I watch the news and the world gives me a fright,
It just reminds me I don't want no trouble.

So no alarms and no surprises please,
Having a barbie with the wife and kids next week,
I'll stay here in my capitalist entropy,
Not realising I've become the new enemy.

The enemy of principle,
The enemy of meaning,
The enemy of history,
Me and my middle-class dreaming.

So I've got my house,
And I've got my car,
As I said I like to drive,
But I don't drive far.

So, that's me. You might just start calling me "Red Dave". But I have my opinions. I think I'm allowed that. And, this paranoid and delusional man, despite the fact that history may well be written by the winners, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, is certainly not for turning.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 87: Austere Times at the Bennett Centre.

2010-09-25T13:34:00.000-07:00

So, it seems that the economic "age of austerity" has well and truly begun to bite here in Stoke-on-Trent. And wouldn't you just know it, mental health is one of the first victims of the massive cuts needed in services to reduce our burgeoning budget deficit.
According to an article in our local newspaper, beds at North Staffordshire's four resource centres are "under threat" as mental health bosses look to save money by cutting 53% of places used by those with mental health needs. Among the four centres, which each currently have 8 beds, is the Bennett Centre which I attend on a regular basis for our Pathways to Recovery group. The number of beds will be cut by 32 to 15, with all 8 beds at the Bennett Centre going in order for it to become the main base for community mental health service staff in the city.
To my mind, this is a real shame, as the beds in question offered a place for respite and recovery both from home life and the more, it has to be said, "demanding" environment of the acute wards at our local Harplands Hospital. The places at the Bennett Centre, then, offered a sort of intermediary service in between home and hospital. No one, it seems, actually wants to spend time on an acute ward, and if truth be told, sometimes just the pressures of everyday living can be too much to cope with. Despite this, patients (or service users as we are now called) will have fewer choices when in need of treatment if these cuts go ahead, the only options remaining being either community care or a stay at the Harplands.
Patients and service user groups have been extremely worried by these developments. In another article in our local paper, where it had been suggested that the beds would close, but only for weekends, Lorien Barber, director of the North Staffs Users Group said:
"This is a slippery slope. I don't think they have any real intention of re-opening the units at weekends. We can't see how patient care won't be affected. It will lead to people being moved around and having their treatment disturbed".
And so it is that, after all, the unit at the Bennett Centre will not even be open during the week, and a valuable resource for service users appears to be going down the drain.
What irks me most about these cuts in services, though, is that it always seems that such austere measures begin with the poorest and most vulnerable in society, while the orchestrators of our recent economic collapse, who must be some of the richest people in the country, appear to get away relatively unscathed. Indeed, I don't know whether it's just me, but there seems to be a real fear amongst our populace of the political left, a fear which possibly grew out of the rampaging leftist movements of the 1970s which left the country in similarly dark economic waters. But, surely things have gone too much the other way and veered too far to the right, to the point that Ed Miliband, because he secured votes from the unions in the recent Labour leadership contest and is said to be slightly left of centre, has been branded by the "Daily Mail", "Red Ed". As one pundit pointed out, his policies are perhaps no different to those of any other European social democrat, and yet in Britain he has been given this apparently pejorative monicker. So, just how rich do the rich have to get, and how poor do the poor have to be, in order for someone to realise that such inequalities of wealth cause enormous problems and the political right is not the answer to them.
So, it seems, whatever I think, we're in for austere times at the Bennett Centre. Fortunately, our Pathways to Recovery group will not be affected by these cuts and, indeed, is going from strength to strength. One can only feel terribly sad, however, for those who are not so far on in their care and who would no doubt benefit from the very resources that are currently being cut.
That's all for now from your normal, average, delusional and paranoid man.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 86: Making Changes for a Brighter Future? If only they'd let me!

2010-09-21T09:31:00.000-07:00

As you who read this blog may know, I have been on the lookout for some form of part-time work. Having worked voluntarily for over 3 years now and having experienced probably 5 years of good mental health, I feel it is time for me to branch out and move on. This is not to say that I would entirely give up my voluntary work, but that I may want to do something else in conjunction with it.
I have also said in many blogs that I have often found a lack in mental health services for people in my position. There seems, at the moment, although I know efforts are being made, a lack of provision for those like myself who have been unemployed for a long time through their ill health to help them back in to work.
So, as help does not seem to be immediately forthcoming from that quarter, I decided to look to some local mental health charities to see what they might be able to provide.
Having acquired some literature from two such places (I will avoid mentioning any names here), the outlook seemed promising. One charity offered an 8 session "in to work" course. "Take the right steps to work- The Right Steps to Recovery", the blurb on their leaflet announced. The course, which it said, ran "throughout the year", offered "motivation, employment opportunities, benefits and finance advice, social skills training and general guidance and support". Well, this seemed to be exactly what I needed. After, possibly, 13 years of being unemployed, I surely could not be expected to just jump back in to work without any help, and this seemed to be the sort of help I needed. So, I rang the charity in question, only to find that the course was no longer running. After a brief conversation, they re-directed me to an organisation called "Jet Business" which offered similar courses. However, "Jet" are not, like the charity in question, conversant in the needs of those who have experienced mental ill health. So, I decided that some more searching may be needed.
The result of this was that I found another charity, also based locally in Stoke-on-Trent, that, according to their web-site, offered a "supported employment programme" or SEP. The programme was said to offer help for those who had been long-term unemployed due to their mental ill health, so I seemed to fit the criteria perfectly. It, much like the other course, offered work training programmes, support with benefits, portfolio building and, in some cases, work placements. So, I quickly got on the 'phone to enquire, at which point I was told, in no uncertain terms, that the charity ran a supported housing scheme, but not a supported employment scheme. I explained that the information I had gleaned was on their internet site, to which the lady to whom I was speaking promptly said, "yes, but that's for people who have been mentally ill". I explained that I had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, to which she then replied that I would have to be a "customer" of the charity in order to enroll. "So, how do I become a customer?" I asked. "I'll send you an application form in the post", she replied. So, so far, so good. Only thing was, that when I received the said application form , it was an application for employment with the charity, not to become one of their "customers". So, I rang them again. Again the same rigmarole about having to be mentally ill, with me again explaining that I had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Again the person I spoke to seemed unsure as to whether this SEP even existed, finally stating that places were only available by referral, and that I could, if I wanted to, use my employment application form to apply for "relief" work, something which I had not wanted at all. So, after this not entirely enlightening conversation, I was left slightly dumbfounded, and it was clear that neither of the charities I had spoken to, despite advertising otherwise, were not offering any help for people like me to return to work.
This, I feel, begs the question, if such charities are not there to help people like myself, just who exactly are they supposed to be run for the benefit of. Indeed, I am slightly angry at the fact that both these places did not seem bothered about, or even want, my "custom", despite my diagnosis and clear suitability for such schemes. In fact, I think that too often, those with diagnoses of mental illness can ghettoise themselves and portion themselves off from the rest of society. I mean, even I can't get in to these places, it seems, and I am "one of them".
So, the only option left for me seems to be the dreaded job centre. At least there, I know I should be able to speak to a Disability Employment Adviser or DEA, who should be able to give me the advice and support I need. I had hoped that making changes for a brighter future would be endorsed and helped by such charities, but it seems that in this case I was wrong.
That's all for now from your normal, average, paranoid and delusional man.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 85: Feeling Great, So Something Has Got to be Wrong.

2010-09-10T22:25:00.000-07:00

I can, today, say that unequivocally, without any shadow of a doubt, I am feeling pretty good. After changing my diet and beginning to exercise I have lost something in the region of 2 stones, 9 lbs. That feeling of sluggishness has gone and I can now at least walk some distance without getting out of breath. It is refreshing just to be able to walk up stairs without undue exertion. My clothes are beginning to get baggier and I can, finally, face the world without being too embarrassed about my weight.
Indeed, many people, mostly staff members at my local residential unit, have remarked on how "well" I look. Even my blogging and now 3D friend, Gary aka klahanie, remarked that really, I was "quite a good looking guy", who had something of a Robin Hood look about him. I was not wearing green tights and brandishing a bow and arrow when Gary made this remark, but I found it flattering all the same. And, as someone once said, "flattery will get you everywhere". Not that Gary and I are something more than friends, you understand, but just being average joes who have no hang-ups about wearing pink and the like, we can make such comments to one another without offence. For example, I have no qualms in telling Gary that I find his moustache and hairy back really quite prepossessing. But, I digress.
With all these compliments coming my way, then, I feel I have to keep my feet on the ground and not become appallingly vain or some such. Indeed, I sometimes feel as if I'm feeling so great, then something has got to be wrong.
After years of illness it is unusual for me to feel so good, and I was reminded of a situation which once occurred with a gentleman from the mental health charity, "Changes", which is based in Stoke-on-Trent.
After meeting with this gentleman, we had a rather long conversation about how I had ended up in mental health services. I told him my diagnosis and also about my weight gain due to taking anti-psychotic medication. He then asked me how I felt now, to which I replied that I was "fine", which, without any shred of dissembling, I could assuredly say I was. Said gentleman, however, was not convinced. "Are you sure?" he said. "Yes", I replied. But the gentleman, I think, remained unsure, and as the conversation continued I felt he was almost fishing around to find problems which didn't really exist. "Yes, but, how do you feeeeel, David?", he would ask. It was as if he would draw out the word, "feel", to emphasise its importance and, in my experience, such people are never interested in what you might think, but rather only in how you feeeeel.
So, with a diagnosis like mine, it is often difficult to convince people that you are, indeed, OK. Even a friend of mine of the opposite sex who now knows my diagnosis cannot seem to get her head around the fact that people like myself can function "normally". "But you are normal", she protests, and has now come to the conclusion that I have not experienced schizophrenic illness at all, but rather have had what is euphemistically called "a break-down".
To some, then, no matter how great I feel myself, there will always have to be something wrong. I put this down to the way, in general, schizophrenia is largely misunderstood by the public. I do not know how many times I would have to explain this to such people, that schizophrenia is an episodic condition, can be controlled with medication and from which many recover, in order for them to understand. Suffice it to say that I doubt any such understanding will be forthcoming unless the stigma surrounding schizophrenia is, once and for all, broken.
In the meantime, I will go on my new, lighter, happier way, trying conscientiously to avoid those who tell me that something has got to be wrong.
That's all for now from your normal, average paranoid and delusional man.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 84: A Change for the Better.

2010-09-03T22:56:00.000-07:00

It's difficult sometimes when speaking of mental ill health not to get bogged down in negativity. The prejudice, the stigma, the discrimination; not to mention the debilitating and harrowing nature of mental illness itself. So, it is my joy to announce, that according to some recent statistics, the experience of stigma and discrimination amongst those who have experienced mental ill health may be on the wane. This new research has come from the organisers of the "Time to Change" campaign, of which I have spoken in this blog before.
Time to Change is a national campaign, funded by both Comic Relief and the Big Lottery Fund to the tune of some £20 million. The campaign is a national one and is truly wide-ranging, or, to use the modern jargon, "multi-platform". It has 35 projects in all, including local community projects, a high-profile national campaign, a mass-participation physical activity week, legal test cases, training for student doctors and teachers, and a network of grassroots activists combating discrimination.
Time to Change launched in January 2009, and, having carried out a survey of those with experience of mental distress, now reports that there has been a marked reduction in the experience of discrimination. More precise figures from the Institute of Psychiatry, published in July, show that the overall level of discrimination reported by people who have experienced mental ill health has dropped by 4 per cent in the last 12 months. The levels of discrimination faced when searching for a job dropped by 9 per cent and there was a 6 per cent reduction in the number of people who report losing their job due to having a mental illness. Meanwhile, findings from a Department of Health study showed a 2.2% improvement in public attitudes from 2008 to 2010, with a significant 1.3% improvement in attitudes from 2009 to 2010 when the Time to Change campaign began.
You may wonder how such precise statistics are arrived at, and I can honestly say that I don't really know. Suffice it to say that there has been a lot of research done by both Time to Change and the Institute of Psychiatry in to measuring public perceptions. The Institute of Psychiatry's research, led by (yes, it's that man again!) Professor Graham Thornicroft, has led him to suggest that things may be at a "tipping point". He stated:
"These findings are very encouraging and after only one year there is clear evidence of the positive achievements of Time to Change. This raises the intriguing possibility that we may be approaching a tipping point at which more and more people feel able to speak about their own experience of mental ill health, and that this will then lead to a step change in public acceptance and social inclusion."
So, there is definitely hope and solace to be taken from these new findings. I can only hope that our own anti-stigma campaign at the Media Action Group for Mental Health, "Local People, Local Lives", will have a similar effect on our local population. It has been said before that purely educational campaigns are not wholly effective, but Time to Change's multi-faceted approach does seem to have brought about a change for the better.
That's all for now from your normal, average, delusional and paranoid man.
(The statistics and quotes in this blog were taken from "mentalhealth today" magazine, issue September 2010).

Dave's Progress. Chapter 83: Caught in a Trap?

2010-08-21T23:03:00.000-07:00

It has been a long-held bugbear of mine that there seems little provision within mental health services for those who feel themselves well enough to return to some form of work. Particularly for those with diagnoses like mine, which indicate a "severe and enduring" condition, there seems to be a culture of low expectation, which I feel I have experienced, which serves, perhaps, to mire people within the system. Instead of moving on with our lives, then, many seem to languish on incapacity or disability benefits, creating problems of social isolation, low self-esteem, and a general lack of structure and meaning to life. Of course, only those well enough and capable enough should even be expected to find work, but with many people I have seen, who have degrees, masters degrees and even PhDs, the overwhelming impression one gets is of an enormous waste of talent and experience.
So, now I find myself in the position of wanting to "move on". Despite the work I already do voluntarily, I feel I would like to try for more, and perhaps launch out in to the realms of paid work, perhaps just part-time for the time being. So, where does one start?
Well, as always seems to be the case with those who have experienced mental ill health, the process of going about finding and perhaps getting suitable employment seems to be fraught with issues.
For a start, if one is lucky enough to find suitable employment, one still has to make the decision of whether to disclose or to obfuscate one's history of mental ill health. According to some literature I have from the mental health charity Rethink, there are both pros and cons in disclosing one's history or diagnosis of mental illness.
The pros include:
-being automatically given an interview due to many organisations' wish to increase the number of disabled people working for them.
-being covered by the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) and because of this being afforded "reasonable adjustments" to enable you to do the job.
-having control over how you present your experience of mental ill health to your prospective employer.
-by admitting the difficulties you have had and how you have overcome them shows maturity and determination, qualities which may be attractive to employers.
The cons include:
-unfair treatment
-stigma within the workplace
-giving false information on application forms can lead to dismissal. You are legally obliged to tell your employer if, for example, your condition has any health and safety implications.
-you just might not want to declare your condition as you do not think it impacts on your ability to do the job, but then you lay yourself open to the above point.
In my own case, I think I would always declare my mental illness, perhaps in a covering letter, as I have a massive 13 year gap in my employment history, which, without admitting my diagnosis, might, in itself, put off potential employers.
This is all fine, however, if you even get to the stage of being offered a job. Thankfully, in January of this year, the government decided to ban employers from asking job applicants about their medical history prior to interview. In this way, a lot of potential discrimination has been banished, but one still has to get to the stage of being offered an interview, and in the current economic climate, even the most hardened jobseeker may find difficulties.
Further to this, as I am currently only seeking part-time employment, one has to know how this will affect my benefits. Indeed, it may well be that I am one of those people you so often hear about in the media now who are caught in a "benefits trap", where it is simply not worth it in economic terms to go out and find work. Indeed, Rethink recommends that people like myself first get advice from the CAB to find out how I will be affected if I do, in fact, gain employment.
So, is all this really worth it? Am I "caught in a trap"? Or is the structure, meaning and self-fulfillment of working worth it despite the possible pitfalls?
For me, I think, it is worth at least trying. Who knows where things could lead? So to some, I may indeed be caught in a trap. But for me, I think I can see a way out.
That's all for now from your normal, average delusional and paranoid man.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 82: Confessions of a Cinephile II- The Changing Face of Cinema.

2010-08-11T02:38:00.000-07:00

As you may know, one of my enduring interests is film. I wrote about this in a blog entitled "Confessions of a Cinephile, or, Whatever Happened to Hollywood". Now, I don't quite know why, other than because of my "enduring and severe" ill health, but I haven't actually been to the cinema to see a film for a long time. Most of the films I see I either watch on TV or rent from my local DVD store in Smallthorne. It was good, then, to actually go and see a film at my local Odeon in Festival Park along with other members of the Pathways Group.
The film we chose was Christopher Nolan's "Inception", starring Leonardo DiCaprio, and it was a rather long and convoluted tale of a group of, what might be termed, industrial spies, who enter the dreams of their targets and, on behalf of wealthy and powerful clients, either steal or plant ideas. The notion of "inception" is concerned with actually "planting" an idea in a target's head, and so bringing about changes in the real world. The film follows DiCaprio and his team as they attempt to do this. The film is full of action, arresting images and great special effects and although the plot is, at times, a little difficult to follow, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Indeed, although not a truly great film, in comparison with most Hollywood blockbusters it was extremely good, managing to be both cerebral and entertaining.
However, although I enjoyed the film, what I noticed most about my trip to the cinema was how much the whole experience of cinema-going has changed.
Indeed, it seemed a million miles away from when I used to go to the ABC or Odeon in Hanley, both of which now are sadly no more. Then, the whole thing seemed to be a big community event, and my experiences at the cinema as a child were formative in solidifying my burgeoning love of the movies.
Then, the cinemas seemed bigger and, in fact, were. They seated more people and there seemed to be a whole grandeur about the decor which is now sadly lacking. The atmosphere was palpable, and the various rituals of cinema-going, like buying ice cream from the usherette during the interval, all added to the magic of going to the cinema.
Now, with commercial interests at the forefront, the Odeon at Festival Park is divided into, I think, nine smaller cinemas. Instead of an usherette there is a large shop selling refreshments, it must be said, at exorbitant prices. There is also a bar and various video game machines which flash and howl at you as you enter the cinema. All in all, the atmosphere seems designed for your average teenager, and indeed, the majority of those who go to the Festival Park seem to be of that age or younger. Perhaps now, with most Hollywood films seeming to be aimed at the under 25 demographic, this is entirely intentional. So, the whole thing begins to come over as one giant exercise in advanced consumerism, losing, I believe, some of the magic and romance that the old cinemas used to hold and which was an integral part of cinema and cinema going.
I even remember that, as a youngster, you used to get a short or introductory film to go along with the main feature. Now all you get is a steady stream of advertisements and noisy trailers for coming attractions. Not so long ago, even, when I attended university in Wolverhampton, the cinema there, called "The Lighthouse", at least used to uphold some of the etiquette of cinema-going by asking the audience to remain seated until the end of the credits. Such things made you believe that what you were watching was more important than just a commercial enterprise. That it might, in fact, be art. And "The Lighthouse" did screen some movie classics, from things like "Taxi Driver" to Francois Truffaut's "Jules et Jim", as well as the latest releases. Indeed, it wasn't all just Hollywood product, with many modern foreign films, from Almodovar to the best in contemporary French cinema being screened. Now, at such multiplexes as the Festival Park, it seems that only films from the Hollywood studios get screened there, with even British films having a hard time of it in terms of distribution. One tends to worry, therefore, about the knowledge of film that new cinema-goers have. One can only hope that they investigate themselves the rich stream of movies that come from other countries and cultures, as well as our own often more cheaply produced home product.
Also, having researched a little about cinema in Stoke-on-Trent, it seems that we have a very rich tradition of cinema-going. The first cinema in Stoke, Barber's "Palace", was built in 1910, and in times gone by, there were around six cinemas in our City Centre of Hanley alone, with around 35 peppered throughout the whole of Stoke. Some of these old cinemas were grand buildings, often in the art-deco style, seating up to 2,000 people. However, now most of these cinemas have gone or been demolished. Even Barber's "Palace" was unceremoniously knocked down a few years ago, and there is not even a commemorative plaque there to show what was once a rich heritage. To my mind, such insensitivity to our own culture in Stoke amounts to a form of brutish philistinism, at worst a sort of mindless vandalism of our own past.
So, going to "the pictures", as we used to say, has certainly changed. To make just one positive point about it, I did read somewhere that the young are essentially getting the same out of the cinema as they did back in the '70's or even earlier. The magic and the romance may still be there for them, but is just being expressed in a different way. And as I sometimes say in this blog, perhaps, at my age, I begin to look at the past with rose-tinted spectacles. However, somehow I just can't bring myself to celebrate the changing face of cinema. To me, the experience of "the pictures", particularly in Stoke, just isn't what it used to be.
That's all for now from your normal, average delusional and paranoid man.

Dave's Progress. Chapter 81: Post Script: The Right Lose the Fight.

2010-08-09T03:25:00.000-07:00

A short while ago I wrote a blog entitled, "Fear and Loathing in Stoke-on-Trent". It was in response to a recent seeming rise in support in Stoke-on-Trent for political groups and parties like the EDL (English Defence League), who led a, it must be said, fiercely opposed, demonstration in our city centre, and the BNP (British National Party), whose leader, Nick Griffin, also visited Stoke with his suitably yob-looking entourage.
I pointed to a various number of circumstances, such as the decline in our local industry and years of social and economic deprivation, as the apparent causes of this rise in support, leading to, I think, seven BNP representatives being elected to our local council.
I am glad now to report, however, that despite the attempts of such groups to take a strong-hold in Stoke, with Nick Griffin even turning up in our local council chambers to launch the BNP's manifesto, at the last election the people of Stoke-on-Trent did me proud by not supporting such right-wing groups, whose ostensibly reasonable arguments about lack of representation for your average Brit hide their virulent racism.
There were fears, then, that Stoke could have become a new stamping ground for the extreme right, and this was obviously felt by the groups themselves, who seemed to hone in on Stoke-on-Trent as possible fertile ground for their thoroughly unpleasant ideology.
Fortunately, though, our fears about fear and loathing coming to our locality have been allayed, and the groups which peddle it have been roundly defeated. In this instance, thanks to our local populace, who appear, as one opposition banner at the EDL's demonstration suggested, to prefer oatcakes to racism, the right, at least this time, has lost the fight.
That's all for now from your normal, average delusional and paranoid man.