#to a Thought. but i think to a certain extent it is generalisable | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ot3blog · 2 years

Text

P-O-S-I-T-I-O-N-A-L-I-T-Y

Who are you?

A simple question, right?

Wrong.

Who we are is a question which encompasses so many factors, choices, views, beliefs, and experiences? It is a question which I don’t think we will ever really have an exact answer to. It is difficult to try and think about why we do things in a certain way and why we think in a certain way and I for one sometimes think that we wont ever know the full extent as to what makes us, us. It is however something which we need to keep thinking about in order to grow and develop. Do you ever find yourself thinking back to a moment few years ago and thinking ‘why did I think it was okay do that’ or ‘I can’t believe I used to be like that’? This is because as you grow and develop, your experiences and knowledge change who you are, and you are able to learn from them and thereby change your own positionality.

Our Positionality influences how we interact with others, make decisions, and interpret others’ actions and it consists of many contributing factors (Pollock, 2021) – this also ties in as to why the title of this blog is broken up – to try and show how our positionality is broken up and made up of so many things.

Below is an image which shows the different make ups of our positionality

With regards to my own positionality, I am a young Muslim female who has grown up in an average socio-economic background and I am currently in my 4th year studying Occupational Therapy. I am also of the Indian culture. These are the factors which largely influence my positionality. I mentioned my religion first as I feel it has the most influence in my life and on my beliefs. I attended an Islamic school for most of my life and to be honest this gave me very little exposure to the real world, and it shaped my views of the world in an idealistic way according to my own beliefs. Upon finishing school and entering the diverse and culturally rich university environment, my positionality underwent a huge change. I became more open, and my thought process also became less naïve and more realistic to the world which I was living in. I still hold my religious beliefs in high regard, but I have found that whilst practicing OT and whilst interacting with others, I am able to look past my own beliefs and see the client/person in their own context and respect that. This is especially shown whilst working with make clients, in Islam I am thought modesty and restriction when it comes to interacting with the opposite gender. During fieldwork, I was first hesitant and reserved when it came to the idea of working with male clients, however as I learnt more about OT and as I got used to this practice, I became more comfortable and willing to work with males. This is important as I was able to look past my own positionality and sort of adapt it and develop so that it does not limit or affect my work as an OT

Growing up in an average socio-economic household also put me in a place of privilege which I have always been grateful for, but I have not always known how it affected my views. Going into a community such as Inanda which has such a low-income rate and high poverty rate, I was also able to see how my background affected my positionality. I sort of had a generalised idea of what a household consisted of and when dealing with clients I was able to realise that I was wrong in this. In the context of a community such as Inanda, something as simple as asking a client ‘when do you go to bed’ can be extremely wrong when the client does not have a bed to sleep in, realisations like these are actively shaping my positionality right now and I am extremely grateful for this.

With regards to OT and my positionality personally, studying OT has shaped my positionality in so many ways. It has given me an immense amount of knowledge especially with regards to interacting with people appropriately – mainly clients. The experiences which I’ve gained in fieldwork has also helped improve the way I speak and address client who are different from me. It has thought me to respect traditional practices and views as well as to take these into account when planning and implementing treatment for a client in order to make it more appropriate for them.

The image below shows how we need to have a growth mindset in order to progress and develop as human beings

Living in South Africa has also had a great affect on my positionality. South Africa is a country which to put into simple terms, has been through a lot. It was colonised by the Europeans and when they left in the 20th century, controversial legislation of land ownership was passed to ensure that the majority of land would remain in the hands of white farmers (Piotrowski, 2019). This was also the stem of the whole apartheid era which lasted from 1994 when South Africa was declared a democratic country. After apartheid things did change with regards to racial injustice, people of colour were then given more opportunities and legislations were put into place to try to correct the injustices of the past. Even though change was made, the extent of this change really did not go very far. After apartheid, white people still remained in positions of power and kept their high-income jobs and houses whilst the people of colour still remained in low-income jobs and areas as seen explicitly in the Inanda community, this cycle in some ways is still carrying on (Malala, 2019). How this affects my positionality is that in a way, I still feel that we live in a divided society, we are still dealing with the injustices and trauma of the past and this motivates me more to give everyone the equal treatment because I know that some of these people are experience a health care and economic system which has been unfair to them, everyone deserves excellent health care treatment and I want to help make this difference to their lives.

Below is the link to a beautiful poem by Masizi Kunene which depicts the reactions of people of colour to an apartheid free South Africa

The reason why it is so important to be aware of and consider your own positionality when working in communities such as Inanda, is because the people who live in these communities experience a different reality from your own. They have different home environments; they grew up with different kind of parents who were not always able to provide the best for them and then they themselves got caught up in this cycle because of the lack of change and opportunities (Lynsey Bourke, 2009). We need to consider and change our own positionality in order to see things from their own perspective and to plan treatment more appropriately and not to pin our own views and beliefs on the people we work with. In a community such as Inanda it is important not to plan an idealistic treatment programme but a REALISTIC one. It also applies to treating your client with respect no matter how much you disagree or think that they are doing the ‘wrong’ thing, planning treatment according to their own views is what OT is about.

In conclusion,

undefined

youtube

References

Lynsey Bourke, S. B. (2009). Feildwork Sttories: Negotiating Personality, Power and Purpose. Academia.

Malala, J. (2019). Why are South African cities still so segregated 25 years after apartheid? Johannesburg: The Guardian.

Piotrowski, A. (2019). Colonialism, Apartheid, and Democracy: South Africa's Historical Implications on the Land Reform Debate. Journal of Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Research.

Pollock, M. (2021). What is Positionality. Engineer Inclusion.

#Youtube

2 notes · View notes

fellhellion · 3 years

Note

Thoughts on the blue lions please 🥺

of course!!!! i love them sm aa (tho pls keep in mind ive only Just got to the big fancy ball)

Dimitri: Very interesting! Recent game developments have me very curious as to where his character is going. There’s a few conflicting support conversations that have VERY interesting implications for what he buries down deep inside himself that i’m really hoping will be explored fully. Specifcally him saying he couldn’t trust Byleth unless he knew they didn’t enjoy killing but then Felix’s first support being acknowledgement that he enjoyed battle. There’s a lot of trauma and rage buried in this spagetti hair blond and im really nervous to see what the tipping point for him is. dude should be in fucking therapy, not in the militarised church fjdksfhjkdlshfkj

Dedue: god i have so many feelings about this man. the internalised self hatred is incredibly fucking tragic and it’s a relief beyond words to see characters liek Sylvain expressly push against it. Dedue is also an interesting character to me because he holds his tongue specifcally on topics w certain characters. You’d never guess from his first support w Felix that he’s been thinking and silently agreeing with what Sylvain deduced about the unlikeliness of Duscar taking arms up against the king. And so much of that works incredibly well w what we learn of the discrimination he’s faced; he doesn’t want to endanger Dimitri by inviting too much scrutiny and thus the academy is really the first time he’s had this chance to work through even an iota of what he’s going through, and w people who want to support him. also the DEEPLY underrated hilarity of his supports w Byleth being the equivalent of two silent protagonists holding a friendship.

Annette: She’s so sweet!! I love the visual of tiny women and massive axes which is always great. She’s a wonderful foil when interacting with the more serious members of the cast and I just enjoy how cheerful she is! I haven’t progressed her Support w Byleth enough to get more info on the story with her father but i am Curious

Ashe: sweet boi....SWEET boi i love him so much. I wish the conflict with his father got expanded upon tho dear god. Like, ur gonna tell me his dad was executed by a church sanctioned and politcally motivated battle and theres NO internal conflict that arises???? even just from the meta of Lonato being able to attack his son within that battle?? bro....i love how he plays off other characters but i genuinely feel, unless there’s more story coming up, it was such a missed opportunity for complex character development

Mercedes: I really love her! I really like that she’s this mini subversion of the passive, sweet and oblivious healer trope. Mercedes IS very kind but she’s also perhaps the most perceptive character of the house with very keen insight into how other people operate. She instantly recognises that Sylvain flirting is usually a sign that he doesn’t think he needs to connect w or take you seriously, she takes the time to ask Dedue about his culture and history specifcally because she’s intimately aware of being the legacy of a decimated family. I just like her a whole lot!

Slyvain: pls don’t look at me once again liking pretty boys with depth oh my god im embaressed already I like him! He’s very funny and a nice, lighthearted addition to the cast that contrasts very well with more serious characters like Felix and Dedue. I’m very curious to see if his understandable cynacism towards genuinely connecting w people on a romantic level gets explored for what it is. It’s an interesting bit of selfishness to his character but I really want to see the generalisations of his mindset unpacked, even if the root cause of them is understandable

Felix: An asshole but a hilarious and interesting one. All jokes aside, his support with Demitri and Dedue in particular shine an especially good and interesting light on his internal conflict regarding strength/chivalry and how it relates so deeply to his past. It’s interesting to see where his mindset falters, what boundaries it has. Strength is valued, but not to the extent where he accepts or justifies the murder of innocents. Felix mocks the idea of chivalry but it’s in key part to what he thinks is worth dying for (insert me dying about what i got spoiled on lmao); he hates that his father saw Glenn’s death as of value simply because it was in service to idealism. I really like him a lot, his various supports really Really help flesh out his character so well.

Ingrid: my GIRLLLLLL i wish you had more sapphic content oh my god why does this game hate me personally. Overall I like her! I just haven’t hit any content w her that’s grabbed me by the horns so to speak. I’m waiting to see if the conflict being teased w duty versus dreams w her comes to fruition because goddamn i really want ingrid to being genuinely torn on it!

#ask games #anon #long post #LONG POST WHAT THE FUCKKKKKK #Anonymous

12 notes · View notes

fairycosmos · 5 years

Note

Urgent! I’m the one with the Denmark cousins, I just feel insecure and a bit jealous, they literally almost have it all, they basically lived my dreams lol. I hate comparing myself to anybody but people around me always do anyways. They’re adored by all my relatives, eyes are always on them. It’s like they’re the most important nieces in the family. They’re fucking beautiful and I hate that they’re nice people bc then how do u hate them then it’s wrong & I feel like shit

hey man. it's okay to feel a certain type of way about things, and trying to push those emotions away/ignore them won't solve anything. trouble is, intense jealousy is often linked to deeply rooted issues w your own self worth which is something that needs to be consicously worked on over time or with a counselor/therapist, otherwise it will keep cropping up. you have to look at who you are and what you have and let it be enough. however i also think you need to give yourself a moment to breathe, adapt, accept and let go of what you can't change. the jealousy may always be there to an extent, and while it's painful, it's not smth you need to feel guilty about because it's not like you chose this and it's not like you're actively being an asshole to your cousins about it. that speaks volumes about your character way more than what you're like 'compared' to them does. i'd encourage you to examine why you think they're so untouchable and cool - bc they're pretty? by what standards, and why are those standards imposed, do they even make sense? what does any of that that really change about you? isn't it possible that their light doesn't take away any of your own, even if the self conscious part of your mind wants to trick you into believing otherwise? maybe you could use this to begin to dismantle the lies you've been told about beauty and what makes a person worthwhile. look, when we're envious, we often fall into these black and white all or nothing mine sets, making generalisations and assumptions about the situation because we already feel so bad about ourselves. it happens to everyone at some point. but actively focusing on trying to look at your circumstances from an objective, realistic and fair point of view is crucial. ground yourself in the actuality, in your own strengths as a person. it may not work every time, but attempting is good enough at the start. take a step back and stop putting yourself beneath them right off the bat. they are truly no better or worse than anyone else in the world. consider that you're only seeing a snapshot of who they are considering they live so far away, and so making any sort of strong judgement on your own life in comparison to theirs is just counterproductive. maybe your family are just extra involved with them bc they rarely visit? i know it's hard, i know it feels shitty. and maybe it has to for a while before you brain fully comprehends it all. but comparison really is as pointless as trying to learn how to fly. i've engaged in it for a good portion of my life (as i think a lot of girls are taught to) and it's so fucking exhausting for no gain. maybe it's a natural thought process in your mind but you have to know that your biased against yourself and not every thing you believe about yourself and about your cousins is true. anyway. i'm sorry you're feeling so down about something as fundamental and multi faceted as who you are. and i'm sorry the people around you aren't seeing it. you deserve better and you will get it eventually. please keep in mind that you don't exist in relation to your cousins, that you are so much more than an arbitrary insecurity like this. as i said before, it's really alright to feel what you need to feel, to process it at your own pace and to give yourself some time for your perspective and self esteem to grow. i highly doubt that it'll always be this upsetting and intense, and there is always comfort in the temporary nature of this sort of issue. all the wonderful traits you have do not disappear in the presence of your cousins, or bc you can't see them, and that's the bottom line love. i hope you're okay and that you don't crucify yourself too much over this. a bit of self compassion goes a long way even if you have to force yourself to practice it!! i'll be here if you need a friend or if you want to talk more about about it. hmu whenever bro 💖

#anon

3 notes · View notes

idigitizellp21 · 2 years

Text

Language And Mental Health

“She must be psychotic if she left this submission for the last moment!” Have you ever heard someone say this, maybe in a similar but not same context? Different phrases and words are unique to a certain group of people and generation. In our day to day interactions with our surroundings we come across numerous ways of expression and understanding. To a certain extent some phrases involving particular words have become normalised even without the need to comprehend the meaning, such as the one we mentioned initially. The language we use to describe mental health matters, as it can either add to the stigmatisation of this field or create awareness about the faulty practice of using such damaging words.

We must treat words like gold, with utmost care. Unfortunately, we come across several such phrases which may trivialize or undermine mental health conditions, with or without our knowledge. Being careful of what we say is harder than we think because words slip out of our mouth before we can question their accuracy. For example, many if not all of us are guilty of using the word ‘psychotic’ in a conversational manner. The meaning of this word is related to psychosis that may occur as a result of a psychiatric illness such as schizophrenia, including hallucinations and delusions. A world of mental health problems lie behind the word “psychotic” and many experience it as well. Using it in a casual manner, demeans the reality of what is experienced by those undergoing these conditions. In addition to this, ‘psychotic’ in itself is a word that unnecessarily generalizes the experience to the entire identity of the person and we thus prefer the much more accurate – ‘experiences psychosis’.

We would like to share with you a list of phrases that may diminish the importance of certain mental health conditions. Peter (instagram handle – anxiety_fitness), through his reels, provided us with the idea for many of the following phrases.

“I always need my desk to be tidy and clean, I am so OCD.”

“I thought I would not be able to finish my exam, I basically had a Panic Attack.”

“I just finished this serials’ episode, I think I have PTSD.”

“I lost my favourite earrings in the classroom, I am so Depressed.”

“I think she is a Gemini, she is so Bipolar.”

“She always looks so thin, she is Anorexic.”

“I just cannot talk to attractive people, I feel Autistic.”

“I keep forgetting to send in this email, I definitely have Amnesia.”

“I just cannot sit for this 2 hour lecture, it is my ADHD.”

The language we use is a powerful tool, if not used appropriately and mindfully it can create unrealistic assumptions about certain people experiencing those mental health problems. All of the above mentioned mental health problems, have a long list of criteria’s for diagnosis, symptoms, causes and treatment plans. Using these words in our common day to day language and stripping them off of their intensity is a grave mistake on our part. Eliminating such stigmatizing terms and phrases from our vocabulary that cause shame, minimize experiences, generalise illnesses and misrepresent reality can help remove a major obstacle to treatment. Our minds have been conditioned to associate therapy with people who are ‘crazy’, who have completely lost their minds or the ‘criminally insane’, as mentioned in our previous article titled ‘Stigma about Therapy’. While individuals in the mental health field are trying to actively help the society, our words are passively devaluing the concept of seeking help for one’s mental health.

Our language is emotionally charged and has the power to evoke fear, doubt, and loneliness. It can be a provider of a context for many people, which further entraps them in a vicious cycle, of thinking that they’re suffering from “something” that they really shouldn’t be or worse, that this “something” is somehow defining them as lesser members of their communities (Mental Health Foundation, 2019).

Have you ever repeated the same word several times and then followed it by saying that this word has lost all meaning? This phenomenon is why we identify Obsessive Compulsive Disorder with ‘tidiness’ and Depression with ‘sadness’. By disparaging the seriousness of these disorders we are building on the stigma, prejudice and misbeliefs related to mental health. It is impossible to comprehensively describe the magnitude with which language shapes our thoughts, behaviours and identities. But it is possible to start recognising the words and phrases belittling or stereotyping mental health problems and steering far away from them. Our readers can start with the 10 examples provided in this very article. A conscious and collective effort can evolve our language into an instrument of inclusivity, support and healing for our mental health!

#psychotherapy #therapist #counsellor #counselling

0 notes

jamiemeyer-ent · 2 years

Text

the weight of words

Do we notice the words we choose to use when speaking?

Are we aware of the extent of our vocabulary? And how often we use the width of it?

Do we use words that we are accustomed to using, yet do not really know the definition?

Or do we believe we know the definition. Only to find ourselves confusing others or being corrected?

The definitions of words has evolved so drastically. Most people have a strong sense of what words mean to them, more than their actual definition. We adopt them naturally without questioning, their application or intent. Or even seeking the neutrally recorded definition.

Early in my career within Wholesale, I was quick to learn that the same word could get me into a bit of trouble between States. A Client and I would be talking about two different things. Or would we? Maybe it was exactly the same thing, which went by a different name? Same, Same. But different.

I remember saying that about the United States in comparison to Australia. While it is so very much the same. There are so many differences. Your mind cannot help but understand you are not at home. Words included. It was boggling how many variances I encounter with the United States English and Australian English, Canadian English, British English and English as a second language. The one differing factor being, perspective.

My first trip to the United States highlighted to me just how much the English Language alters. Depending on the culture, history or application of a word. Try saying "jumper" in the US. No one understood what I was saying. Until I realised it's "sweater", I was never get something warm to pull over my head. If I was looking for "petrol", I was only going to find gas. Probably running out of petrol in its pursuit, laughs. And goodness, don't take out the "rubbish" it wont go anywhere unless it's "trash". Oh and if I pulled into a "car park", I was mistaken. it’s a "parking lot". These alternative words are second nature to me now. But having to remember to say them. Use them. Get my tongue around them in the right situation. Well that took some doing.

My definition and understanding of so many words has evolved and expanded throughout my life. It has been an interesting exercise to redefine something that I thought already knew. In doing so, I opened up possibilities. That were already present. Simply unseen. Had I only considered them with a different perspective.

I understand that the extent of my vocabulary is only as large, as my correct application of the words within it. I learnt that depending on my choice of words, the very same sentence altered drastically. And could be interpreted by another person in a completely different capacity than I intended it. Recognising the exact weight of each word I choose to use.

From this, I became passionate about the idea, to redefine the limited and accepted definition of words. To illuminate their historical, evolved meaning. How they can be better applied. The impact they have in their generalised use throughout Business and Society. Allowing us to decipher for ourselves, with clarity what we would like for them to mean and how we wish to communicate them.

Consider the words you use to describe your Business. The language you use in Content and Marketing. The choice of words and sentence structure you invest in throughout your Organisation. From Managers to Teams. From Team Member to Team Member. From Company to Client or Customer.

Think about how even the titles you use and their definition. How they further contribute to the Role in question. How the Role is implemented. How a person communicates within the Role. How others perceive the Role. The connotations and expectation connected to those certain titles.

Contemplate the resistance or disconnection words and titles create, without intention. Simply by being utilised we have unintentionally designed pieces of our Companies. We haven't considered the implications, as we are following a predetermined Model.

Think about the change in a person when they are promoted and a title change is involved. Think about how they redefine themselves within the Organisation. Think about what changes when they step into this Role. In turn, reflect on the new altered perception the Team has of that very same person. Same, same. But different.

How intentional is your Business Language? And what discord could you potentially be creating without considering the implications of its definitions?

#ninecarat #ninecaratmovement #ninecarattreasurechest #ninecarat.bc #ninecaratbc #ninecaratgems #ninecaratvibes #ninecaratbrilliance #shinebirghtlikeadiamond #diamondvibes #diamondbrilliance #sophisticatedbusiness #interdependantorganisations #refractbusinessdifferently #brilliantbusiness #brilliantsuccess #brilliantjourneys #becomemorethanyouexpected

#theweightofwords #vocab #businessvocabulary #definitions #understanding #clarity #communication #definedroles #branddefinition #thecapacityofwords #useyourwords

0 notes

astronomicallyaligned · 6 years

Text

- 50 Astro Asks Answerrd -

I’m bored so thought would do them all myself. Feel free to drop an ask about any of the questions or copy and paste it yourself. Originally by astroalive.

.1. What do you like about your Sun Sign and what don’t you like? I like that us Aquarians aren’t afraid to be different. I don’t like the fact we feel like an outsider even wgen in a crowd.

 2. What are the positive and negative aspects of your Sun Sign that you display?

•. Dislikes being controlled •. Good with people •. Unique views •. Interest in science •. Rebellious •. Non linear •. Supporter of equality •. Tries to analyse the unanalysable •.lover of debate •

 3. Like about your Moon Sign and dislike? I like that Capricorn Moons are quite controlled socially but dislike how emotionless I can be.

 4.Positives and negatives of your Moon Sign that you display?

+. Socially refined -+. Driven +.- detached - melancholy -

 6. Do you get along with people who share your Sun Sign?

I do usually yeah - they tend to be non judgmental and a bit maverick like myself. Some can be a bit arrogant though.

 7.What are your relationships like with those with Signs opposite to you?

My ex was a Leo. I like most Leo’s but my ex was a prolific liar. This was him though not specifically his Leo-ness. I have a few acquaintances who are Leo but no best friends who have been Leo.

 8. What Sign do you get along with best?

I like Pisces if they aren’t too victim complex-y (not saying Pisces are but that Neptune can have a dramatic flair). I also get on well with Taureans in a friendship but not relationship way. Libras and Sagittarius go down well with me too.

 9. Worst?

Aries can go either way really. Same with Pisces. Either get on great or terrible. I prefer the Pisces Moons than Pisces Suns as a rule (for friendships). Capricorn’s and Virgos can be too neat freaky and a bit of a lack of humour.’

 10. Favorite Sign in Sun?

Sagittarius, Libra, Cancer, Gemini.

 11. In Moon?

Pisces, Libra, Gemini, Aries.

 12. Rising?

Pisces, Libra, Aquarius, Leo

 13. Venus?

Taurus, Sagittarius, Pisces, Capricorn

 14. Are you interested/do you believe in Synastry or Astrological Compatibility?

I think it can have an affect but attraction is the most important and life events.

 15. What’s your Astrological OTP?

~Google’s~ hmmm. I’m not sure actually! There’s several pairings I like.

 16. What pair do you think is the worst?

To be honest I don’t think sun signs alone can tell us. On the surface though any Water and Earth pairing.

 17. What Sign have you had the most success with romantically?

Pisces and Cancer. Whether Sun or Moon or both. Which is funny as I have a lot of Capricorn in my chart. However, I’m not really that Saturnian at all. I’m more my Aquarius Sun and Pisces rising which my mischievous Sag Mars and Cancer Jupiter’s softness with the feisty and passionate Pluto in Scorpio in 8th. Also to an extent Taurus and Libra.

 18. The least?

I’ve had no romantic feelings that I’m aware of to a Capricorn or a Virgo.

 19. Are you attracted romantically to a certain Sign?

I like Water and Fire most. I like a bit of a spark. Earth are too traditional as a rule and Air can be too cerebral.

 20. Platonically?

Pisces, Aries, Libra and Aquarius are the most common friends I have had.

 21. What do you like about your Venus Sign?

It takes a while to fall in love but they love deeply.

 22. Dislike?

They aren’t passionate, don’t like PDA, are a little too conventional can be stuck in their ways.

 23. If you could have any Venus Sign what would it be?

Id day Pisces or Sagittarius. I like passion and wish I was that way but my brain isn’t wired as such.

 24. Have you ever compared your chart to another’s to see if the two of you were compatible?

I have done with family, close friends and my partners, yes.

 25. Were there any surprises for you in your birth chart?

When I first saw it I was shocked at how much Capricorn there was.

 26. If you could change any part of your charts what would it be?

All that Capricorn and Saturn. My Jupiter oppositions.

 27. What are the Signs of your friends? What is the dynamic like?

I mentioned above. I have friends of all sorts.

 28. Your parents’ Signs? What is the dynamic like?

My Mum is a Scorpio and Dad is Gemini. They are very different people.

 29. Your current or most recent partner’s Sign? What is the dynamic like?

He’s a Cancer. Hmmm we are very different to be honest. But somehow that works well. He’s organised I’m terribly scatty.’

 30. Do you believe gender influences Astrology?

I think gender is fairly irrelevant.’

 31. Are you interested in Western, Eastern, and/or Vedic Astrology?

All but I know most about Western.

 32. What House placement has helped you the most in life?

My Gemini in 3rd though that is a duplicate (Aries 2nd Libra 8th are Gemini and Scorpio respectively). Pisces rising, Sagittarius 9th house.

 33. Hurt you the worst?

Sun in 12th, Scorpio in 8th and in Pluto Scorpio 8th and Lilith in Scorpio in 8th (sex and power are big issues for me, death and freedom too).

 34. Do you believe Astrology determines our destiny or that we still have free will?

It’s just an indicator of our natural state but our choices male our future

 35. Do you believe in Astrological Soulmates?

No. But I don’t believe in soulmates full stop.

 36. How seriously do you take Astrology?

I use it for reference and to gain insight but don’t hold it as gospel truth.’

 37. Have you ever felt skeptical of Astrology?

I’m skeptic all ofrverything.

 38. Do you worry about Retrogrades?

I don’t worry. They are frustrating but they are what they are.

 39. Do you consider Astrology when planning for your future?

No.

 40. Do you feel like people take Astrology too seriously or not seriously enough?

Depends on the person

 41. Is Astrology a large part of your life?

As I have it as a hobby, yes

 42. Can you relate better to your Dominant or Sun Sign?

Sun definetely. I’m not Capricorn-y at all. Or at least not to an extreme.

 43. What Element is Dominant in your Chart?

Earth.

 44. Are you the type who always asks for other’s Signs?

Haha not straight away.

 45. Feelings on Ophiuchus?

Meh.

 46. What do you like and dislike about the tumblr Astro community?

Nothing speingd to mind.

 47. Do you have a favorite Astro blog?

I have about 3-4 :)

 48. What do you think about Zodiac stereotypes?

As with everything they are just generalised

 49. What’s your Astrology forte? Relationships, careers, etc.

I think I’m an all rounder really. Nothing specific.

 50. Do you believe in any other “pseudoscience”/occult practices?

I am interested in many. Tarot, pendulums and auras to name a few.

#astrology #questions #thoughts #answers #get to know me #source: astroalive

3 notes · View notes

amoralto · 7 years

Text

George, the emotional tangles of John-and-George and Paul-and-George, and the disseminating public eye. (marginalia)

(Note: I thought I’d post this as it’s least somewhat relevant to a reply I’m currently drafting, as mentioned in this post. The following comprises some thoughts and notes dating from at least four years ago, several of which I’m fairly certain were from a headlong and distressingly unstructured missive I wrote in response to a few people on Livejournal who were critical of George for various reasons. In other words, please take this as a point in time!)

Not caring particularly about (if not openly flouting) the diplomacy of his statements in the press and general PR tact shouldn’t and doesn’t reduce George to nothing more than a bitter and self-serving curmudgeon, but it’s unfortunate if that’s the impression he gives to a portion of the general public. One of the things they may find immature about George would be this precise lack of tact, but I’m not sure if that’s really the way to describe it, as if there’s a predicate of weak-minded ignorance. I’d go with entitlement, probably, because the facility of his words arguably say more about George’s relationship with whomever he’s talking about as George’s sense of himself and his attitude towards the press in general than the plain-and-spoken words themselves.

As it is, I think George’s reflexive allergic reaction to the press in general would have augmented the negatives of whatever particularly press-attracting circumstances he would have been in at the time, which would in turn have augmented his bad mood and greatly increased the probability of blunt and potentially disparaging or hurtful comments. On top of that, the press’s nagging propensity for bringing up and rehashing and constantly reminding George of past negative issues and old pet peeves would have hardly encouraged George to be calm and conciliatory. Imagine having someone constantly badgering you about something you’ve already repeatedly expressed your lack of interest in discussing for the nth time; you either become utterly complacent and give rote and curt and tart answers without pausing to think about how they may be perceived (or how they may even hurt the person you’re talking about, in the off-chance that it even gets round to them), or you become so thoroughly harried and irritated about having to deal with this on top of everything else going on in your life that you give the press exactly the kind of unbalanced, hotly negative, headline-worthy statement they want. This goes for people living in the public eye in general, of course, but I think George was probably more liable to it than the other Beatles. He didn’t use and manipulate the press to his advantage as John did with enjoyment and aplomb, and he certainly didn’t accept the press with the mannerly matter-of-factness that Paul did. His way of coping with the public scrutiny for a lot of the time seems to have been either to avoid it straight-out and maintain a reclusive lifestyle or go through the inevitable motions with alternating levels of reluctance and irritability and defensiveness amongst his otherwise reserved and genial disposition. The tendency to take it out on old-hat issues when he was personally going through a bad time was apparent as well, e.g. taking his frustrations with his decades-long legal turmoil with Allen Klein out on Paul because Paul was the easiest and safest and most Teflon-like target, and coming across as more keenly resentful about Paul than he really was at that particular time.

George did struggle with the failure to entirely reconcile his private life with his public persona, and the painful reality of being a flawed individual living in a material world as prone to hypocrisies and contradictions as anyone else, no matter how spiritual he was. One could argue that he never had the compunction or nerve to admit to this under no uncertain terms in public, but I don’t doubt he was at least aware of the inherent disconnect between his spiritual ethos and his own doggedly human trappings and inclinations, and tried, sincerely, to better himself.

It’s easy to say he could have conducted himself better, grown up, “gotten over himself”, etc. over a lot of things, and to some degree they would all be reasonable comments to make about his character or behavior over the years, but I wouldn’t say he had “no right” to feel slighted by Paul, or that he had “no excuse” to feel unrepresented or unappreciated in any capacity, especially not for so long (“unlike” John, who had a dysfunctional childhood upbringing that fostered his lesser attributes), as if justification can be quantified and qualified that simply. His issues with Paul were ultimately not easily visible; they were implicit and accumulative over half a lifetime of being in Paul’s company, and more deeply-rooted than any singular acrimonious Beatles event could adequately account for. Such events, however, invariably became the terms George used, because they were what the press and the general public used - they were documented and obvious and easy.

(Now, why these issues never really went away despite all the changes both of them had been through over the years is something I’d attribute most significantly to the inveterate brotherly dynamic of their relationship - your brother will always be your brother to you, in that way.)

My guess is that Paul profoundly impacted George’s self-esteem and self-judgment early on because of Paul’s particular way of expressing himself and George’s particular way of perceiving it, and in the middle a recognisable disconnect between action and intention. It’s difficult to explain how ostensibly trivial or glib remarks and actions can wear you down after several cumulative years of receiving them with no explicit address of it or acceptable effort to change, but it can, although I would hazard to say that the fault for this lies on both sides. On the other side of this, I’d argue that Paul wouldn’t have affected George to such an extent if Paul hadn’t been important to him in his life, or if the matter Paul’s input and support was never a concern to him, which it evidently was.

Re: George being used and played as a pawn by John in his game of control and leverage with Paul, I’d say George arguably suffered a lack of perspective, from his very particular vantage point. Perhaps he did allow himself to be blindsided to an extent.

It is difficult for me to perceive this in a straightforward way, because there are so many contingencies at hand given the very unique circumstances that the Beatles were in, being as they were in a state of arrested development where they went through an unimaginable amount of experiential growth compressed in a very short span of time in a very isolated and self-involved world where they were both king and prisoner of their domain - which are circumstances that alienated their perspective and also tended to operate on a very arbitrary scale of proportion. Add in further layers of obfuscation via business and press, and you have what amounts to precocious but naive teenagers play-fighting with each other using the ludicrously potent tools available to them with consequences that are unpredictable and very easily beyond their control. Re: John and George putting Paul down in the press and using the press to write Paul off, probably knowing this would be an awful blow to Paul especially given that he was more acutely concerned with public image and more receptive to outside criticism than the others in the band - it was indeed a cruel and impulsive on their part and did tremendous damage to the public’s perception of Paul that prevails even now, but the thing is, it’s problematic to generalise that as well, because it carries the implication that both John and George consciously spent their entire lives dedicated to destroying Paul's reputation, which they didn’t. It’s more likely that they, to put it tritely, overplayed their hand, did some reckless and entitled things driven by anger and hurt (feelings that weren’t unreasonable for them to feel, either, even if they were misappropriated), in reaction to their distorted perceptions of the circumstances at the time, and once the rages and divorce pangs passed, found themselves remorseful but inexplicably unable to repudiate their actions, because the repercussions of what they’d done were out of their hands as soon as they enacted them. (Much as the Beatles phenomenon was entirely beyond their comprehension; they engineered themselves to some degree to make it as a successful outfit, sure, but they couldn’t have prepared for the response.) One certainly can’t say that John and George were in a position, for obvious reasons, to supervise or control the backlash against Paul after John’s death either, which was essentially effected by the press and the public and inevitable in the wake of a hideous tragedy of an iconic figure - the public glorifies the martyred, holds the survivor(s) accountable, and grasps for comparatives.

And lest Paul be excluded as a pillar of maturity, he’s just as responsible for his own image as anyone else, and passive-aggression is still aggression - whatever his intentions were with the McCartney press kit, for instance, he could arguably have worded things with less coldness and contention. That said, it doesn’t mean that he spent the majority of his life being the inverse of a fist, either, as if his personality reached an apex in the summer of 1968 and never moved beyond it. But he had his moments, as they all did.

(Another softer example: Paul’s very legitimate defenses and attempts to reinstate himself and his part in the band, which often have the exact opposite effect he was intending to cause because he comes off as desperately overreaching and self-absorbed. I feel for Paul terribly, but he does do that to himself at times.)

I can see why it might strike people as willful or naive of any of them to continue as they did with the occasional public snipes and jibes and emotional soapboxes and expect them to disappear into the ether, especially when they themselves were aware of the gravity their most offhand and insignificant remarks could have to the public-at-large, but at the end of the day, none of them are obligated to politically correct themselves, in public or no, about people they’ve known for a very influential portion of their lives and feel more than reasonable they have an authority on. I mean, they could certainly have exercised more restraint and consideration in the press, because obviously they could have deliberated not to air their moods in public and be more positive than negative, and the division between the public and private sector is effectively osmotic anyway. But one can’t really demand that they lose their own sense of reality, keep track of what they’re saying at all times, and become cripplingly self-conscious either. It’s just unfortunate.

Anyway, what I like to think underlies everything: “Well, every stupid thing we do or say is a headline to the public anyway, who cares what the public thinks, we know how it really is with each other, and we know we’re bound together for life, even though we still think we’re insufferable pricks at times, and still get on each others’ nerves, and still say some petty and unfavourable things about each other in public which set us off-balance a bit because we’re insecure Northern Men and we can’t talk about our feelings with each other, and business shit brings out the worst in us, but we love each other, and we know what really counts.”

#context #george harrison #john and george #paul and george #the beatles

42 notes · View notes

whereasthepeople-blog · 7 years

Text

‘Don’t you worry about that’: Secret evidence, the executive and the courts (a case note on Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection)

It’s a secret, your honour. Don’t you worry about that.

The High Court has been in the spotlight of late, in respect of both the constitutional qualification issues for various members of Parliament as well the same sex marriage postal survey. One decision that has received less media attention is that of Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Te Puia v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 33 handed down on Wednesday 6 September 2017.

The facts

Graham and Te Puia were citizens of New Zealand who had been in Australia for some time (Graham since 1976 and Te Puia since 2005) each pursuant to a ‘Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary)’ visa. Both individuals received letters from the Minister giving them notice that the Minister had decided to cancel their visas under section 501(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).

Without going in to too much detail here, section 501(3) relevantly enables the Minister to cancel a visa where the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not meet the character test and that the cancellation is in the national interest. Section 501(6) elaborates that a person fails the character test if they have a substantial criminal record (further defined elsewhere) or the Minister reasonably suspects that the person has had association with of a group, organisation or person that has been involved in criminal conduct.

In the letters the Minister stated that in making his decision the Minister had taken account of evidence which was protected from disclosure under section 503A of the Act. Section 503A deals with information the Minister obtains from certain other agencies (usually law enforcement agencies) on a confidential basis and arose out of a reluctance in those agencies to share information where its disclosure might prejudice their sources or methodologies. In each case, that evidence was not disclosed or made available to Graham or Te Puia.

The problem

First, let’s think about this non-disclosure of evidence in the abstract. There are obvious difficulties for a visa holder in this situation. From what you’ve been told, you will be aware that the Minister is of the view (or at least reasonably suspects) that you have a substantial criminal record or other criminal associations, but you won’t necessarily know the detail of that – particularly where that detail is supplied by the evidence provided to the Minister under section 503A of the Act. One can imagine the feeling of confusion, and perhaps a temptation to go through a quick mental review – who do I hang out with? What group are they talking about?

Now, in the case of Graham the Minister’s statement of reasons did outline a connection to a particular outlaw motorcycle gang, as well as some prior offending. In the case of Te Puia, the Minister referred only to the applicant’s membership of a particular group and that decision appeared to be based only on reference to the undisclosed material. In any case, it is not difficult to see how other individuals could be left with very little in the way of reasons presented for the decision made against their interests.

Leaving that to one side however, there’s also a clear problem for the court – the executive has made a decision, based on evidence not made available to the other party. Not only that, but section 503A purports to prevent that evidence being received by the court itself. If a party were to approach the court seeking a review of the decision, say on the basis that the Minister took into account an irrelevant consideration or acted irrationally, how is the court to make a decision?

Of course there is a legitimate interest in an agency preserving its intelligence sources and its intelligence gathering methodologies. All I say, however, is that this secrecy sits in tension with the role of the courts in supervising the executive where it provides the basis for a decision.

As we will see, this difficulty was not lost on the court.

The decision

The court split 6-1 on the matter and a joint judgment was delivered by Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle AND Gordon JJ. Edelman J agreed with the majority on what will be called the ‘institutional integrity’ point, but dissented on the question about the Commonwealth Parliament’s ability to restrict judicial review.

The joint judgment

The joint judgment first dismissed an argument by the plaintiff that the scheme impaired the ‘institutional integrity’ of the court in a way that would offend the Kable principle. That argument by the plaintiff appeared to centre on an analogy to public interest immunity under the common law, and the removal of the decision on what was in the public interest from the court to the executive. The Commonwealth argued that there was no constitutional principle that meant the courts had to be the arbiter of the public interest where admissible evidence were to be withheld. The court agreed.

Instead, the matter was determined on the basis of section 75(v) of the Constitution. That section provides that the High Court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters ‘in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth’. This provision is thought to have the effect of ‘entrenching’ a minimum level of judicial review of executive action that is beyond the power of the Parliament to remove. In this way, section 75(v) ‘secures a basic element of the rule of law’ (paragraph 44 of the judgment).

The joint judgment re-affirmed that the Parliament cannot enact a law that denies the High Court (or other courts in some circumstances) ‘the ability to enforce the legislated limits of an officer’s power.’ It went on to say (at paragraph 48) that:

The question whether or not a law transgresses that constitutional limitation is one of substance, and therefore of degree. To answer it requires an examination not only of the legal operation of the law but also of the practical impact of the law on the ability of a court, through the application of judicial process, to discern and declare whether or not the conditions of and constraints on the lawful exercise of the power conferred on an officer have been observed in a particular case.

In the case of the applicant in particular, the court was denied access to the whole of the evidence upon which the Minister’s decision was based. To the extent that section 503A of the Act prevented the court from seeing information that would be relevant to the question of whether or not the Minister had exercised a power according to law, it was invalid.

Edelman J’s dissent

His honour considered that the joint judgment’s approach was overly broad, for two ‘or possibly three’ reasons.

First, history. Edelman J considered that the removal of this information from the court’s grasp was in effect, nothing new. Far more extreme impairments on judicial review had existed and indeed been standard in the 19th century. His honour referred as well to certain legislation allowing the executive to resist the disclosure of ‘State papers’ to a court by the issue of a conclusive certificate stating that such disclosure would be prejudicial to the public service. His honour conceded the Constitution may have involved a break from those traditions, but went on to say that:

it would be difficult to see how the Constitution broke from longstanding, clear, and established legal history by introducing contrary content to a generalised and broad implication which is ultimately founded on the concept of the rule of law, itself a concept the precise content of which is hotly disputed and which, on many accounts, includes notions of certainty and clarity.

Secondly his honour considered that this legislation went no further than other legislation previously upheld by the court, citing Plaintiff M61/2010E v The Commonwealth (2010) 243 CLR 319. To this I would suggest that the High Court should not consider itself bound by the general ‘fit’ of its decisions in a broader jurisprudence created by many judges over many years. The doctrine of precedent is not so inflexible and prior decisions are, on occasion, incorrect.

And finally, and perhaps most interestingly, Edelman J observed that the ‘unreasonableness’ ground of judicial review which was said to be rendered impossible to undertake by section 503A was no more than a presumption of statutory interpretation. If the presumption can be reversed, excluding review entirely, how then was it impermissible to simply take some evidence out of a proceeding that constitutionally does not have to exist? His honour did not elaborate on this point, but I think there are some clear criticisms to be made. I think this point does not fully answer the question – there are surely other grounds for review, and therefore sources of jurisdiction, that a court could be deprived of by a provision such as this from time to time.

His honour’s dissent is far longer and more interesting than can be sufficiently described here and I highly recommend reading it. It even includes a table of contents, which I think would be useful for many judges to consider.

Concluding comments

There can be little doubt of the benefits to the rule of law that flow from a minimum content of judicial review that is beyond Parliamentary disruption. To adapt an old adage, it says to the other arms of government ‘be you ever so high, the court is above you’.

While there is also something to be said for founding restrictions on power such as this ‘minimum content of judicial review’ on the text and structure of the Constitution, I think that the present case is clear example of that approach. The words of section 75(v) could not be given their proper effect if the executive were free to make decisions outside of the bounds of legality only by virtue of the fact that the court was rendered impotent to receive evidence about the decision. The Australian Constitution does not allow for power without limit.

Whereas the People is an Australian constitutional and public law blog.

#lawblr #australian constitutional law #constitutional law #auspol #high court of australia

2 notes · View notes

lunaswondrousworld · 7 years

Text

Salty fandom questions

Thanks to @darknesshadows @darknessp @malikaesthetics for sending in questions. I’m answering all of them together and putting my answers behind a cut because this turned into a bit of an essay. Because SOMEONE ( *cough* @dnteverdoubtme *cough*) said I should just answer them all (seriously, if I wake up tomorrow with no followers left I will blame this entirely on you). Also, well, salt. Quite a bit of salt.

Anyone following me for longer than 4 weeks shouldn’t be surprised by any of these answers (even though I’ve probably never spelled things out so explicitly), however for those of you who are new around here… beware some highly unpopular, possibly PROBLEMATIC™ opinions. Consider this your only warning and proceed at your own risk (or, you now, just don’t ;- ).

(I’ve done my best to ensure that this doesn’t end up anywhere near any tags, if it does anyway it’s not intentional)

All answers apply to Sh@dowhunters.

Disclaimer: when I talk about “The XY fandom”, this is obviously a generalisation. I know it doesn’t apply to everyone. Some of my mutuals are part of the xy fandom, and all of them are lovely people. /end disclaimer

What OTPs in your fandom(s) do you just not get? While I personally don’t ship any of the canon ships, I do get why people ship them. If we’re talking all the ships in this fandom that anyone could possibly ship, I’d have to say ClaIec. Or Alec/any girls really. Make no mistake, I’m not saying this due to moral or ethical concerns – personally I don’t give a flying fuck what people ship, even if its VaIentine x a Vetis demon, whatever floats your boat – but I just really, fundamentally do not get it. I mean that boy is as gay as they come, take that away and you’ve got an entirely different character. Beats me really.

Are there any popular fandom OTPs you only BroTP? All the canon ships, current and future ones.

Have you ever unfollowed someone over a fandom opinion? More than once. I usually live by “don’t like don’t read”, and I scroll past / blacklist a lot. But there’s a handful of things where my stance is 100% A and if yours is B or C, that’s not something I can ignore. In this fandom, it’s mostly when people post / reblog certain nasty anti opinions/posts.

Do you have a NoTP in your fandom? Are they a popular OTP? *looks at the camera like I’m on The Office* (for those of you reading this who seriously DON’T know, just continue to the next answer)

Has fandom ever ruined a pairing for you? (this one was sent in by ALL but one person, I would like to point out. So either you truly don’t know or you’re just here for the wank.*g*) Okay you might want to sit down and grab a bite cause this might take a while. You see (and that’s the part that usually surprises people) I actually started out as a pretty hardcore MaIec shipper in this fandom. Yep, me. Shocking, I know. I sort of migrated from the Teen Wolf fandom and everyone I followed back then was gushing about MaIec, I saw the first gifs on Tumblr (the show was already more than halfway through S1 when I started watching) and I thought hey, they’re cute, and actually canon, whee! So I pretty much fast-forward binged to 1x12 - through a pair of heavily MaIec-tinted glasses. My ideal version of the show back then, I’m ashamed to admit, probably would have been 90% MaIec, 9% Izzy and a little bit of Lydia on top (which was pretty much what a large majority of my dash was on about), I was totally ready to ditch everyone else for a short while. But thankfully, it wasn’t long before my brain remembered that I was capable of independent thinking, and I did a re-watch, and noticed that not everything was as picture perfect as it was made out to be, and I also actually noticed (and started falling for) the OTHER characters and possible pairings, most prominently Jace and JaIec (and honestly it will never cease to baffle me how anyone with a functioning pair of eyes will be able to look at S1 and NOT see that potential. Well, except for the MaIec-tinted glasses, probably). For a very short while, still blissfully oblivious to the nastier parts of this fandom, I happily multi-shipped (which was a first for me, I really am a ONE OTP kind of girl) both JaIec and MaIec pretty much equally, MaIec as far as canon was concerned (despite its many flaws - which where blatantly obvious once I cared to LOOK - but chose to ignore for the sake of happy shipping) and JaIec as a “God look at all that potential, in a different reality where xy had gone differently they totally would have been endgame” sort of way. And then that E!Online Shipping poll happened (the 2016 one where MaIec lost to CIexa) and that’s when got a first inkling of the truly ugly, rabid side of this fandom (back then I shipped both MaIec and CIexa so that’s probably what gave me a bit of a neutral observer’s perspective on these poll shenanigans, cause personally I didn’t care which of the two ships won since I loved them both). Around that time I had also started talking to a couple of JaIec shippers - who were lovely (looking at you fam) and refreshingly NORMAL compared to what I’d started to see in that other corner. Anyhow, from then on I was slowly distancing myself from the MaIec fandom as a whole. I still liked the ship in the sense that I enjoyed watching it in canon, even though, in terms of actual OTP, I quickly gravitated more and more towards JaIec (as I said I am a ONE OTP kind of girl so it was bound to happen). Long story short, during the long hiatus between s1 and 2a, (MaIec) fandom got exponentially nastier until, at some point – I’m still not sure when exactly - it just TIPPED (cause it definitely wasn’t like that back when S1 was airing, not to that extent) – and it suddenly started being “okay” to just outright attack and hate on everyone who dared ship either one of the pairing with someone else. With a level of vitriol and nastiness I have seldom seen (and I’ve actively been in fandoms since BtVS first aired, which was in the late ‘90s). Coupled with such a level of impertinent entitlement where everything has to be about or relate to MaIec, else there’s outrage across the entire fandom. And that, my friends, eventually managed to put me off the pairing for good. To the point where, if I’m entirely, brutally honest, I’d actually prefer to not see any Alec scenes at all to having to watch MaIec scenes, because this godawful fandom will find a way to ruin it one way or the other. If only by constantly whining about how it still wasn’t enough or “how dare that other character breathe while my OTP was about to suck face this is an OUTRAGE!!!”

Has fandom ever made you enjoy a pairing you previously hated? I can’t think of one, no. I might end up hating something I started out liking (see above), but I don’t think it ever happened the other way around. What sometimes does happen is that maybe there's something I don't actually care about all that much and then fandom will start hating on it and in the end I'll like the thing out of pure spite. But if I actually hate something, that'll stay that way.

Is there anything you used to like but can’t stand now? See #5.

Have you received anon hate? What about? Nope, because I don’t have anon on.

Most disliked character(s)? Why? I don’t actually actively dislike any of the current main characters. I did Simon in S1 but I’ve learned to tolerate his existence (that’s as far as I’m willing to go here). If we expand this a bit to “characters I’m least interested in” I’d have to go with Luke and Simon. I’m just not interested in either of their personal arcs unless they are somehow relevant to my faves’. Also I’m not to keen on Maia or any of the other new characters they’re adding (unless they’re somehow relevant to my faves) for the sole reason that they will take up screen time I’d rather spend on characters I’m actually interested in. I did dislike Jocelyn, but, yeah.

Most disliked arc? Why? My knee-jerk reaction would be to say MaIec (bitter? Me? Naah!) but that’s only part of the truth. Actually it’s more “all the romantic arcs for the sake of romance while not contributing anything else to the greater plot or to individual character development”. Cause MaIec as a general development was an important part of Alec’s character arc in S1, and that whole “the girl who you’re falling in love with is actually your sister” an important factor for Jace’s, so I can appreciate them for that. But beyond that, I’m just not interested in any of the romance plots. At best, they bore me to tears (I’m not actually joking when I say that I signed up for a show where pretty people wearing leather jackets and fingerless leather gloves kill demons and are awesome together, not “the warIock and his shadowhunter and their epic romance”. I’m more of a “The Walking Dead” / “Supernatural” girl than “Friends” or “Gilmore Girls”, you know?). At worst, they make characters I actually like do increasingly stupid things to the point where I’m left wondering if they’re actually the same character I originally fell for.

Is there an unpopular character you like that the fandom doesn’t? Why? VaIentine & Sebastian. I usually tend to like villains, and while VaIentine really often leans towards “ridiculous comic book villain”, I just love AIan Van Sprang and what he does with the little that the show gives him. And Sebastian (judging from what we know from the books) is just so deliciously fucked-up badwrongevilPROBLEMATIC™ that he’s inspired the keepers of this fandom’s moral purity to write up entire manifests why Thou Shalt Not Like Him Under Any Circumstances Cause He’s Bad Wrong And Evil™ back before it was even certain that he would be in 2B in the first place. So obviously I’m going to stan the shit out of him. Also, WiIl Tudor’s cute and British and I’m really looking forward to him and Dom having scenes together. :-)

Is there an unpopular arc that you like that the fandom doesn’t? Why? As for what has already happened, I didn’t actually mind Izzy’s Yin Fen plot. I wouldn’t say it was my favourite, but I certainly didn’t hate it as much as the rest of the fandom. I don’t have a particularly sophisticated reason for it though. As for what’s most likely / possibly to come, I hope the show will follow the book plot for Sebastian as closely as possible. (I don’t want to say too much for people who don’t know anything about it and don’t want to be spoiled.) Why? Because I like darkbadwrongnasty shit. Give me “darkbadrwongnasty shit where awful things and horrible people happen to good people” over romance any time. (Also, it would most likely piss large parts of this fandom off, that would be an added bonus.)

Unpopular opinion about XXX character? He’s not as flawless as you all like to believe. That’s okay though, flaws are what make characters interesting.

Unpopular opinion about your fandom? It’s the worst fandom ever? IDK is than an unpopular opinion? Probably, since around 80% ARE the worst people, and they would disagree with me so...

Unpopular opinion about the show? The writing really is rather subpar compared to some of the other shows I watch.

If you could change anything in the show, what would you change? Age it up (have the characters be some of the actor’s actual ages, i.e. around their late twenties), move it to a network like HBO or Starz, and make it push the limits of an R-Rating. Also, put the main focus on the Sh@dowhunters, Sh@dowhunters politics, just all things Sh@dowhunters. Centered around the Lightwoods (including Jace). (And did you notice how none of what I would change would actually include “make JaIec canon”? Cause contrary to what large parts of this fandom seem to think, this is not all I / we think about. Wow what a shocker.)

Instead of XYZ happening, I would have made ABC happen… Well take a look at my shipping and plot preferences and then you can probably guess my answer.

Does not shipping something ‘popular’ mean you’re in denial and/or biased? I don’t know, does it? If you ask the majority of this fandom, it really means I’m all sorts of –ist and just generally a horrible person. Or something. Do I get bonus points when I act like I care?

What is the one thing you hate most about your fandom? Pretending to do everything for a higher, nobler purpose (shipping for representation and the likes), refusing to accept that not everyone else will or has to adhere to your own standards of what’s right or wrong or PROBLEMATIC(TM), and taking everything that happens on the show too damn seriously. Refusing to grasp that this is primarily a fantasy tv show with a main purpose to entertain its audience, and to earn the network money, not to make the world a better place.

What is the purest ship in the fandom? CIizzy and CIimon, probably. But honestly, nothing in this fandom is even remotely pure.

What are your thoughts on crack ships? Whatever makes you happy, I don’t judge.

Popular character you hate? Nope.

Unpopular character you love? see #11

Would you recommend XXX to a friend? Why or why not? As a piece of trashy popcorn entertainment to pass the time, yes. To someone who actually asks for a rec for quality television, no. Cause it just isn’t quality television. (And yes I know it’s a fantasy show geared towards teenagers, but so was BtVS, and that one still managed consistent writing and character development, over 7 seasons. But anyways.)

How would you end XXX/Would you change the ending of XXX? With the Lightwoods / Alec running the NY institute. The very last scene would end like the very first one began: Jace, Alec and Izzy together, just the three of them.

Most shippable character? For me personally? Jace. Generally (though I personally don’t actively ship them with anyone except low-key with each other), I think Izzy and Clary are pretty shippable as well. Simon too.

Least shippable character? Luke? But just because he doesn’t really interest me so I personally wouldn’t know who to ship him with. Except VaIentine (past times, and probably present time also), but I’m sure that’s all sorts of badwrongproblematic. Ah well.

#Luna replying to stuff #*#*text #me rambling away #well I asked for it didn't I #I only have myself to blame #*g*#meme

6 notes · View notes

unillustratedadventures · 7 years

Text

Interpersonal Toxicity: Categorising Abuse by its Immediate Causes and Recognising Covert Abuse

When it comes to the reasons or motives of the abuser, I suspect that all cases of abuse and interpersonal exploitation can be divided into just two categories, without remainder: psychopathic cases, and narcissistic cases. By this I do not mean that only psychopaths and extreme narcissists abuse or exploit others. Nor do I mean that abuse and interpersonal exploitation are only committed by individuals who have the associated Cluster B personality disorders (roughly, antisocial PD in the former case, and either narcissistic, borderline, or histrionic PD in the latter case). Psychopathy and narcissism are both dimensions of personality along which everybody has some value or other, even if this value is within the normal range. Moreover, the labels ‘psychopathic’ and ‘narcissistic’ can be generalised in a relatively straightforward way to constructs other than personality traits—e.g. to isolated actions, and even to complex social systems. So, what I mean by the claim that all abuse and interpersonal exploitation is either psychopathic or narcissistic is, roughly, that all abuse and interpersonal exploitation either results from something for which the label ‘psychopathic’ would be appropriate, or results from something for which the label ‘narcissistic’ would be appropriate.

Very roughly, 'psychopathic’ pertains to the absence of empathy and to shameless entitlement (including an entitlement to violate others’ boundaries, and to avoid or refuse accountability). In contrast, 'narcissistic’ pertains (again, very roughly) to the obstruction or misdirection of empathy—usually in defense of one’s own ego or self esteem, or to avoid feelings of shame—which leads to the violation of others’ boundaries and the avoidance or refusal of accountability.

Roughly-speaking, to abuse or exploit another person is to do any of the following things:

(i) To knowingly, deliberately, and needlessly violate the person’s boundaries.

(ii) To prevent the person from establishing or enforcing her boundaries.

(iii) To avoid, or refuse to acknowledge, that one has violated the person’s boundaries when one has done so.

(iv) To avoid or refuse to: make amends, help pick up the pieces, provide closure, or face the music (whichever is appropriate) when one has violated the person’s boundaries.

Accordingly, someone will have abused or exploited another person psychopathically just in case he has done any of these things knowingly and deliberately, without remorse or regret. Depending on the extremity of the behaviour, instances of psychopathic abuse or exploitation are actions that one might ordinarily describe as sadistic, cold-blooded, or evil. To put it briefly, to commit a psychopathic action is to deliberately and unnecessarily hurt, violate, or exploit another person, despite knowing that this would occur.

As mentioned, one need not be a psychopath (i.e. high in trait psychopathy) in order to commit a psychopathic action, in the relevant sense. Indeed, psychopaths might be construed as individuals who are persistently and strongly disposed to performing psychopathic actions, as evidenced by a history of doing so. One’s level of trait psychopathy roughly equates to the extent to which one is persistently disposed to performing psychopathic actions. Equivalently, one can think of this as: one’s level of trait psychopathy roughly equates to the likelihood, over time, of situations that would be sufficient for one to act psychopathically. Regardless of their extremity, those who are above average in trait psychopathy will regularly and intentionally hurt and use others (sometimes just for the sake of it), and pervasively lie in order to get what they want or to get out of trouble.

In contrast, someone will have abused or exploited another person narcissistically just in case she has done any of the above things, (i)–(iv), because of a defensive drive, impulse, or mechanism that is inappropriately motivating or inappropriately triggered . As discussed, a psychopathic action is, by definition, both deliberate and performed in anticipation of its negative consequences. In contrast, a narcissistic action need not be deliberate—at least not in the same sense. With a narcissistic action, it is possible for there to be a sense in which the actor is not in full control of her action at the time of acting, or does not fully understand the negative consequences of her action at the time of acting. (Regardless of the level of control or awareness, a narcissistic action qualifies as an instance of abuse or interpersonal exploitation.) When a narcissistic action is performed both deliberately and knowingly, it also qualifies as a psychopathic action—for it meets the necessary and sufficient conditions outlined above. It is narcissistic because its immediate cause is a defensive drive, impulse, or mechanism that is dysfunctional. However, it is psychopathic because the actor is aware of the negative consequences of his action, has sufficient control over the action that he need not have performed it, and yet performed it anyway (in service of the defensive drive, impulse, or mechanism). Alternatively, a narcissistic action might be triggered by the relevant defense mechanism contrary to the actor’s more stable desires and intentions. It is also possible that the narcissistic defense mechanism affects the actor’s representations rather than her behaviours, such that, at the time of acting, the actor mistakenly believes that her action is appropriate, justified, or will not have the relevant negative consequences, despite this being in contradiction to what she would otherwise have believed.

Again, one need not be a narcissist (high in trait narcissism) in order to commit a narcissistic action. Narcissists might be construed as individuals who are persistently and strongly disposed to performing narcissistic actions, as evidenced by a history of doing so. One’s level of trait narcissism roughly equates to the extent to which one is persistently disposed to performing narcissistic actions. Equivalently, it roughly equates to the likelihood, over time, of situations that would be sufficient for one to act narcissistically. Regardless of their extremity, those who are above average in trait narcissism will regularly hurt and use others, whether this is fully deliberate or not. They will also have unstable mood (they are prone to disproportionate rage in response to perceived criticisms or slights, for example), and they will be inconsistent in what they say and do. Whether fully deliberate or not, a narcissist routinely makes and breaks promises, and her actions often do not match her words. (This is the case even when the relevant actions are themselves words; which is just to say that a narcissist is inconsistent in what she says.)

Above, I discussed how the same action can be both psychopathic and narcissistic. Relatedly, it should be clear that the same individual might be comorbid in psychopathy and narcissism—i.e. high in both trait psychopathy and trait narcissism. Indeed, this looks to be the rule rather than the exception. Even if a psychopath fails to be sufficiently high in trait narcissism to qualify as a narcissist, he will almost certainly be at the higher end of the normal range. Likewise, mutatis mutandis, for narcissists. A cormorbid psychopath/narcissist is strongly and persistently disposed to performing both psychopathic actions and narcissistic actions (regardless of whether these are the very same actions).

All other things being equal, it is arguable that the most destructive among the abusive or exploitative actions are covertly narcissistic actions. These are actions which qualify as narcissistic in the above sense—i.e. they are abusive or exploitative actions that are immediately caused by a defensive drive, impulse, or mechanism. However, they are covertly narcissistic inasmuch as their targets (or else everyone but their targets) are either unaware or uncertain that they are in fact abusive or exploitative in nature. This can be because of the nature of the narcissistic action itself. Alternatively, it can also be because the actor has brought about a context in which the abusiveness or exploitativeness of the action cannot be reliably recognised (even though it would otherwise have been recognisable as an abusive or exploitative action).

Of course, while covertly narcissistic actions are especially dangerous and insidious, it is only possible for certain kinds of actions—or certain kinds of actions in certain kinds of contexts—to be covertly narcissistic. There are actions that are going to be overtly abusive or exploitative in most contexts (including those that the actor might have brought about). In contrast, there are varieties of emotional and psychological abuse that are intrinisically difficult to recognise at the time that they are happening. But it is typically obvious that, e.g., instances of physical, sexual, or verbal abuse, or instances of lying, infidelity, or sudden abandonment in a context of love and trust, are indeed abusive or exploitative actions. And yet, even in such cases, there are still contexts that the actor might bring about, in which the target will be unable to reliably recognise that the relevant actions are abusive or exploitative, or at least in which the target will be unable to fully understand the extent of the abusiveness or exploitativeness. This is usually achieved by way of a form of subtle psychological abuse called 'gaslighting’. Over time, gaslighting functions to alter or distort the way in which the target represents the abuser, the situation, herself, or her thoughts or feelings. When gaslighting is psychopathic (regardless of whether it is narcissistic), it constitutes a deliberate attempt to violate and control the target, so that the gaslighter can get what he wants, or escape accountability for what he does. When gaslighting is both narcissistic and non-psychopathic (which is to say, not deilberate in the relevant sense), it is always the result of defense mechanisms such as psychological projection and splitting.

Given how destructive covertly narcissistic actions can be (in light of the fact that they are difficult to recognise), it is ideal for one to be equipped with tools for picking up on the subtle cues or warning signs of covertly narcissistic abuse. There are various specific behaviours that one might learn to spot. However, I shall instead keep things rather general and abstract. I.e. there is a certain broad type of interpersonal situation or dynamic in which covertly narcissistic actions are inevitable. By learning to spot this situation or dynamic, one will be better able to recognise and avoid covertly narcissistic actions across the board.

Let’s again consider (i)–(iv). These are the different broad ways of abusing or exploiting another person, regardless of whether the abuse or exploitation is deliberate and knowing (i.e. psychopathic) or defensively triggered despite contrary goals (i.e. narcissistic and non-psychopathic). To oversimplify, (i)-(iv)—and hence abuse and interpersonal exploitation more generally—are about violating, obstructing, or avoiding accountability for another person’s boundaries. WIth this in mind, the relevant kind of interpersonal situation or dynamic—the one in which covertly narcissistic actions are inevitable—is roughly the kind of situation or dynamic in which the abuser’s violation, obstruction, or avoidance with respect to the target’s boundaries are reframed in terms of the enforcement of the abuser’s own boundaries. This can make it difficult to determine right from wrong, especially when one is embedded in the situation. However, luckily, there are ways to tell that a person is reframing things in this way, whether deliberately (psychopathically) or purely defensively (purely narcissistically). Roughly-speaking, you can tell that a person is reframing things in this way if that person’s purported boundaries just so happen to silence you, control you, or prevent you from stating or enforcing your own boundaries.

This asymmetry in the nature of the boundaries is an effective way to distinguish the abuser from the target, in cases of covert abuse. The abuser’s purported boundaries just so happen to prevent compromise, discussion, or cooperation with the target, with respect to the target’s own boundaries. In effect, then, a person is being (covertly) narcissistically abusive, and will continue to be abusive in this way, so long as she keeps treating any attempt at issue resolution or honest discussion as though it is itself an abusive or violating act (needless to say, it is not). By doing this, she brings about a toxic situation that automatically privilieges her own purported boundaries no matter what, and in which roles are automatically reversed and blame is automatically shifted onto the target.

Not all covertly narcissistic actions are predicted by such a situation. However, it is plausible that this kind of situation does predict the only such actions that can be predicted. Overtly abusive actions are brazen in their violation, obstruction, and avoidance. I.e. they are readily seen as abusive or exploitative. In contrast, covertly abusive actions either violate, obstruct, or avoid in a manner that is not immediately obvious, or they violate, obstruct, or avoid in a context that distorts the perception of the observer. By definition, covertly narcissistic actions of the former kind are intrinsically difficult to recognise, and so there is little that one can do in the way of forewarning. However, covertly narcissistic actions of the latter kind always arise in interpersonal situations or dynamics of the sort that is described above, and for this reason they can be recognised and predicted.

I have only characterised this toxic kind of interpersonal situation or dynamic in a fairly abstract way. In light of this, I shall make the matter more concrete—and, I hope, more practically helpful—by breaking it down into a few slogans. These slogans are closely tied to the broad types of abuse and exploitation that are mentioned above, (i)–(iv). The slogans pertain specifically to the covertly narcissistic means of abusing or exploiting in the relevant ways. When taken together, the slogans serve to characterise the covertly toxic situation or dynamic. To this end, it might be worth internalising the following slogans, in order to sidestep covertly narcissistic actions:

A. It is toxic and entitled to think, or to insist, that the mere statement, clarification, or enforcement of another’s boundaries somehow violates your own.

B. It is toxic and entitled to think, or to act as though, one can violate others’ boundaries simply because one has prevented these boundaries from being properly stated or clarified.

C. When one has violated another person’s boundary, it is toxic and entitled to think, or to insist, that it violates one’s own boundaries to raise this matter, or to try to discuss this matter, or to try to resolve the associated conflict or tension.

D. It is toxic and entitled to punish the violation of a boundary, or to strictly enforce a boundary that violates the boundaries of others, when this boundary is idiosyncratic or non-obvious, and one has refused to state it or clarify it.

It is abusive to do any of A–D, within any interpersonal relationship or interaction. However, when one combines A–D, it amounts to acting as though one can do whatever one wants, regardless of the cost to others, and without any accountability or any repercussions. Moreover, it amounts to covertly acting in this abusive and entitled manner, by way of framing one’s abuse and exploitation of others as the defense of one’s own rights or boundaries, and by casting other’s attempts to defend or protect themselves as acts of abuse or violation. Accordingly, the person who combines A–D brings about a situation in which their narcissistic actions can be covert. The situation allows for this because it silences, coerces, and shifts the apparent blame onto the target of the genuinely abusive actions.

3 notes · View notes

her-culture · 7 years

Text

Popular Belief is Killing Avant-Garde

What is avant-garde? Today we have come to understand that this word could come to describe just about anything; a person, buildings, a particular project, theatre, music and literary works to name a few. But how often do we regard anything as avant-garde today?

Avant-garde, an ideology, is defined as “people or works that are experimental, radical or unorthodox, with respect to art, culture and society. What avant-garde does is it “pushes the boundaries of what is accepted as the norm or the status quo, primarily in the cultural realm”. In other words it means bursts of revolution, the induction of new belief in a stale society.

So the question is, is our society stale? We seem to be buzzing with new technological advancements, celebrity gossip, political drama and it seems, that is the extent of our evolution as Homo Sapiens currently. Approximately half a century ago, a major revolution had caused rifts in human thinking. People were forced out of their ordinary stagnant, routine based lives to fire up their thoughts that had once been collecting dust. Music by Leonard Cohen, Miles Davies, literary works by Earnest Hemingway and Virginia Woolf, gargantuan structures by Frank Lloyd Wright and Frank Gehry were all productions of avant-garde that inspired people to go the extra mile and experiment.

We, today, seem to be afraid. This fear sticking to our skin like a veil of mist, moulds our tongues and thoughts and actions, stifling creativity. What is holding us back. If I go into what holds us humans back, I would have to write and entire dissertation on the subject matter. So I shall boil it down to one single train of thought; our belief of needing to belong.

From needing to belong to wanting to belong has been the characteristic of our society for centuries. We belong to our family, our culture, our tradition, our group of friends, our community, and our country. We wear it like our identity and let all this connotations define our thought. In this day in age we have attributed our time more than ever to belonging.

The computer age has made it easy to send and receive information from all parts of the world. Beginning with the rise of email, MSN, Google, Yahoo, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and many more in between. We send out information saying that a thing has to be done in a particular way, we have to dress in a particular way, we must think in a particular way or even eat a certain way. Our lives have become synonymous to walking down the isle of a department store and picking a product, or in this case a way of life. Then we put labels on ourselves; hipsters, hippies, minimalist, bohemians and again whatever that comes in between. All the time drowning out that little voice in our heads.

Our need to belong has made us so accustomed to large groups, that spending time alone seems almost out of the question. But what we fail to realise is that only in solitude one is really able to distinguish one’s thoughts free from chatter and public opinion. This in return gives birth to avant-garde. Virginia Woolf rose early every morning before anyone else could and stole herself away to a backyard garden shed, where she did most of her writing. Einstein contemplated most of his mathematical and physics equations on long walks. Carl Jung built himself a two storey stone house, away from civilisation, along Lake Zurich known as the Bollingen Tower, to spend time conducting studies and writing articles. Literary giant Franz Kafka said it best when he observed “Remain at your table and listen. You need not even listen, just wait, just learn to become quiet, and still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked. It has no choice; it will roll in ecstasy at you feet”. The process is very simple, discharging yourself from the crowd means to allow your thoughts breathe, when your thoughts are in charge, you produce great work. Voila!

Avant-garde was the love child of rebellious thought and intense passion, free from public opinion. The moment mass generalisation came into action, avant-garde had become a dying art. Yes we are achieving great things today as well, we’re sending people to Mars and curing diseases once deemed impossible to cure, but this it seems have become the goal of a very small minority as opposed to the revolution that had occurred half a century ago. The passion that shook the world then has evolved into a dim shiver. Once we realise this the zeitgeist of avant-grade will once again be restored.

#avant garde #experimental #fashion

1 note · View note

operagheist-blog · 7 years

Text

PHYSIOLOGICAL CATEGORIES HERE. part 2 of the huge meta, i split this up for everyone’s sanity.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CATEGORIES

LEARNING & MEMORY

learning is defined as the process in which changes in behavior arise as a result of experience interacting with the environment. memory is defined as the record of a person’s past experiences gained through learning. this is literally from my class powerpoint, it’s pretty straightforward.

ERIK’S MANNERISMS IN RELATIVITY TO CLASSICAL CONDITIONING

what is classical conditioning? i’m sure you guys have heard of pavlov’s dog. classical conditioning involves teaching an organism that one stimulus serves as the predictor for a specific upcoming event. as far as i can recall, there was some sort of experiment by clark hull in terms of classical conditioning where he used his students as subjects & conditioned them to expect pain ( i think he slapped them ) if they were presented with the paired stimulus. i’m not sure if that’s a true story, though. something that IS real is the baby albert experiment, where the subject, a baby named albert, was conditioned to fear things that were white & fluffy. he was presented with a white rat & then the experimenters caused a loud noise that scared the shit out of him. honestly, that was a really awful experiment & it screwed albert up for the rest of his life. ‘ knight, what the fuck does this even have to do with erik ’ ok so let’s look at his initial reaction to physical contact, ignore motn & ponr for a minute ok. if he’s not the one initiating the contact, don’t fucking touch him, because after the whole ‘ devil’s child ’ experience, he’s likely associating touch with pain, where he expects someone to hurt him if they reach out without him first showing that it’s ok ( see. angel of music ). christine did not fucking help this problem after the unmasking part one. erik also reacts by trying to get rid of something he perceives as a predictive stimulus to which he expects pain, see. the swordfight, immobilising raoul in the final lair scene, the torture chamber scene in the 04 movie etc. i’m also certain there are other external stimuli that cause the same reaction & the issue is that they’re fucking hardwired into his brain because he’s been hurt all his life. associations learned through classical conditioning CAN FADE OVER TIME if the stimulus is presented without the expected response. drug abuse can also be linked to classical conditioning, especially in the issue of relapses that can occur post-rehab.

ERIK’S MANNERISMS IN RELATIVITY TO OPERANT CONDITIONING

what is operant conditioning & how does it differ from classical conditioning? operant conditioning involves an organism learning about the relationship between a stimulus, a response, & an outcome. unlike classical conditioning, the determining factor in whether or not the outcome occurs is based on whether or not the organism makes a response to a stimulus. the whole point of this section is that erik sure as heck learned what responses would lead to certain outcomes; this could explain the reclusiveness from other people ( if they don’t see him, they can’t hurt him ), the distant interactions if he’s interacting with anyone in poto canon that isn’t christine, mme giry, or the daroga ( if they don’t know him, they can’t use anything against him ), & the mask ( if they can’t see the deformities, they can’t shun him... as much as they could otherwise ). the third point is really more of a learned response to lessen the aversive outcomes, although it can’t necessarily prevent them.

ERIK’S MANNERISMS IN RELATIVITY TO GENERALISATION OR DISCRIMINATION OF SENSORY STIMULI

ok, generalisation is basically the brain grouping similar stimuli together & assuming an equivalent outcome to one stimulus to the other, even if that’s not the case ( allergies are a really good example, i have an aunt who is allergic to walnuts, but not other types of nuts, another example of food generalisation happens in children, a child who doesn’t like broccoli may assume they won’t like cauliflower either, due to its similar appearance. in the olden days, people avoided i think some sort of berries or whatnot that are widely eaten today because they looked like the poisonous belladonna ). discrimination is the ability to perceive differences between stimuli ( a kid who hates broccoli recognises that cauliflower is different & understands that it might not be so bad ). tldr, important things erik generalises: a sudden approach from another person means i’m going to be hurt, because attempts at contact mean i’ll be hurt. people who are highly intelligent & knowledgeable in many subjects are less likely to discriminate against me, because people who understand medicine deal with similar things, people with medical knowledge must also be well educated in other areas. important things that erik can discriminate against: types of music, that’s pretty obvious — give him music by a known composer & he’ll sure as heck be able to identify it from another similar work by someone else. not all leading sopranos go downhill after five seasons, age is a factor, some singers are better than others, but the level of specific skills may not always be better in the singer deemed overall superior to the other ( carlotta can definitely project more than christine, but since erik trained christine, she’s better at carrying a tune, so on so forth ). not all of mme giry’s girls have the proper poise, some aren’t meant for certain steps or lifts, some have better endurance. honestly this discrimination is fine tuned for the arts, be it visual, performance, literature, & also extends to architectural knowledge.

PERSONALITY PSYCHOPATHOLOGY + ERIK’S BEHAVIOR FT. PLAUSIBLE DIAGNOSES, ALSO OPIOID ABUSE

here is a link to the DSM V.

for elaboration, see DIAGNOSTIC NOTES. applicable traits will be followed by ✔︎ O

obsessive-compulsive personality disorder — diagnostic criteria.

defined as a pervasive pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, & mental & interpersonal control, at the expense of flexibility, openness, & efficiency, beginning by early adulthood & present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by FOUR OR MORE of the following: 1. is preoccupied with details, rules, lists, order, organization, or schedules to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost. 2. shows perfectionism that interferes with task completion ( e.g., is unable to complete a project because his or her own overly strict standards are not met ). 3. is excessively devoted to work & productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships ( not accounted for by obvious economic necessity ) ✔︎. 4. is overconscientious, scrupulous, & inflexible about matters of morality, ethics, or values ( not accounted for by cultural or religious identification ) ✔︎. 5. is unable to discard worn-out or worthless objects even when they have no sentimental value. 6. is reluctant to delegate tasks or to work with others unless they submit to exactly his or her way of doing things. ✔︎ 7. adopts a miserly spending style toward both self & others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes. 8. shows rigidity & stubbornness. ✔︎

posttraumatic stress disorder — diagnostic criteria.

posttraumatic stress disorder note: the following criteria apply to adults, adolescents, & children older than 6 years [ for this, i will simply exclude the children under 6 years parts, or other irrelevant to time period notes ]. A. exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence in ONE OR MORE of the following ways: 1. directly experiencing the traumatic event(s).✔︎ 2. witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others. 3. learning that the traumatic event(s) occurred to a close family member or close friend. in cases of actual or threatened death of a family member or friend, the event(s) must have been violent or accidental. 4. experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the traumatic event(s). [ ... ] B. presence of ONE OR MORE of the following intrusion symptoms associated with the traumatic event(s), beginning after the traumatic event(s) occurred: 1. recurrent, involuntary, & intrusive distressing memories of the traumatic event(s) ✔︎ 2. recurrent distressing dreams in which the content &/or affect of the dream are related to the traumatic event(s). ✔︎ [ ... ] 3. dissociative reactions ( e.g., flashbacks ) in which the individual feels or acts as if the traumatic event(s) were recurring ( such reactions may occur on a continuum, with the most extreme expression being a complete loss of awareness of present surroundings* ) ✔︎. 4. intense or prolonged psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event(s). 5. marked physiological reactions to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event(s). ✔︎ C. persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the traumatic event(s), beginning after the traumatic event(s) occurred, as evidenced by ONE OR BOTH of the following: 1. avoidance of or efforts to avoid distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with the traumatic event(s) ✔︎. 2. avoidance of or efforts to avoid external reminders ( people, places, conversations, activities, objects, situations ) that arouse distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with the traumatic event(s) ✔︎ D. negative alterations in cognitions & mood associated with the traumatic event(s), beginning or worsening after the traumatic event(s) occurred, as evidenced by TWO OR MORE of the following: 1. inability to remember an important aspect of the traumatic event(s) ( typically due to dissociative amnesia & not to other factors such as head injury, alcohol, or drugs ). 2. persistent & exaggerated negative beliefs or expectations about oneself, others, or the world ✔︎. 3. persistent, distorted cognitions about the cause or consequences of the traumatic event(s) that lead the individual to blame himself/herself or others ✔︎. 4. persistent negative emotional state ( e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame ) ✔︎ 5. markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activities. 6. feelings of detachment or estrangement from others. 7. Persistent inability to experience positive emotions ( e.g., inability to experience happiness, satisfaction, or loving feelings ). E. marked alterations in arousal and reactivity associated with the traumatic event(s), beginning or worsening after the traumatic event(s) occurred, as evidenced by TWO OR MORE of the following: 1. irritable behavior & angry outbursts ( with little or no provocation ) typically expressed as verbal or physical aggression toward people or objects ✔︎. 2. reckless or self-destructive behavior ✔︎. 3. hypervigilance ✔︎. 4. exaggerated startle response. 5. problems with concentration. 6. sleep disturbance ( e.g., difficulty falling or staying asleep or restless sleep ) ✔︎. F. duration of the disturbance ( criteria B, C, D, & E ) is more than 1 month. ✔︎ G. the disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning ✔︎. H. the disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance ( e.g., medication, alcohol ) or another medical condition ✔︎. specify whether: with dissociative symptoms: the individual’s symptoms meet the criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder, & in addition, in response to the stressor, the individual experiences persistent or recurrent symptoms of EITHER of the following: 1. depersonalization: persistent or recurrent experiences of feeling detached from, & as if one were an outside observer of, one’s mental processes or body ( e.g., feeling as though one were in a dream; feeling a sense of unreality of self or body or of time moving slowly ) ✔︎. 2. dereaiization: persistent or recurrent experiences of unreality of surroundings ( e.g., the world around the individual is experienced as unreal, dreamlike, distant, or distorted ). note: to use this subtype, the dissociative symptoms must not be attributable to the physiological effects of a substance ( e.g., blackouts, behavior during alcohol intoxication) or another medical condition ( e.g., complex partial seizures ). specify if: with delayed expression: if the full diagnostic criteria are not met until at least 6 months after the event ( although the onset and expression of some symptoms may be immediate ).

opioid use disorder — diagnostic criteria

A. a problematic pattern of opioid use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by AT LEAST TWO of the following, occurring within a 12-month period: 1. opioids are often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended. ✔︎ 2. there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control opioid use. 3. a great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the opioid, use the opioid, or recover from its effects ✔︎. 4. craving, or a strong desire or urge to use opioids ✔︎. 5. recurrent opioid use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home. 6. continued opioid use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of opioids. 7. important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of opioid use. 8. recurrent opioid use in situations in which it is physically hazardous ✔︎. 9. continued opioid use despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance ✔︎. 10. tolerance, as defined by EITHER of the following: a. a need for markedly increased amounts of opioids to achieve intoxication or desired effect ✔︎. b. a markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of an opioid ✔︎. note: this criterion is not considered to be met for those taking opioids solely under appropriate medical supervision. 11. withdrawal*, as manifested by EITHER of the following: a. the characteristic opioid withdrawal syndrome — [ presence of EITHER of the following; 1. cessation of ( or reduction in ) opioid use that has been heavy & prolonged ( i.e., several weeks or longer ) ✔︎. 2. administration of an opioid antagonist after a period of opioid use. B. THREE OR MORE of the following developing within minutes to several days after criterion a : 1. dysphoric mood ✔︎. 2. nausea ✔︎ or vomiting. 3. muscle aches ✔︎. 4. lacrimation or rhinorrhea. 5. pupillary dilation, piloerection, or sweating. 6. diarrhea. 7. yawning. 8. fever ✔︎. 9. insomnia ✔︎. C. The signs or symptoms in criterion B cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning ✔︎. D. the signs or symptoms are not attributable to another medical condition and are not better explained by another mental disorder, including intoxication or withdrawal from another substance ✔︎ ] b. opioids ( or a closely related substance ) are taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms ✔︎. note: this criterion is not considered to be met for those individuals taking opioids solely under appropriate medical supervision.

DIAGNOSTIC NOTES. i could have put more things here, but this is really getting long. with all of that, erik’s a mess ngl.

crappy college psych major attempt at diagnostic conclusion? OCD, PTSD with dissociative symptoms & a severe case of opioid addiction.

there were going to be more sections here, but i actually covered everything that i needed to ( as far as i know ). some specifics for the opiate withdrawal; these obviously pertain to when he’s not using opiates, whether it’s because he doesn’t have them, or due to a desire to alleviate concern in others ( especially any loved ones he gains ).

i am so so sorry for how long this is. if you got thru this, bravo & i love you for doing so.

#𝄞 、⁞ angels still have lain with mortals & brought forth titans & monsters of old. ❨isms.❩#abuse //#drug addiction //#mental illness //#i cant believe i even finished this part that was a lo t of read in g thru the dsm v.....

2 notes · View notes

victoriasugden1 · 7 years

Text

I think it’s hilarious, that people are using “well if Bex had been a male character I still would still feel the same” as an excuse to justify the hatred for the character and while I don’t feel like that’s a justifiable reason, I have thought about in depth, and their probably right to a certain extent, if Bex had been a male character going after Robert, they would have been hated just as much because, I think this whole situation leads back to Robert and internalized biphobia which is ingrained within our society. That’s RIGHT she’s bringing that up again.

If Ed, had come back into the show instead of Rebecca, and he and Aaron had started spending large amounts of time together, and for example, they started to work together, and Emmerdale went down the route of “Aaron’s old flame is back, will he won't he cheat.” It would have been a different story. Now, I’m not saying he would have gotten no hate (I don’t like to generalisation) but he wouldn’t have gotten the hate Rebecca has gotten, and nobody would have called him a whore, bitch, the devil among many other things.

AND if Robert would have been jealous, you all would have eaten it up and enjoyed the storyline. Cause hey, Robert chasing after Aaron like a lost puppy, and being jealous, seem to be the narrative a lot of people in this fandom are up for, and fair enough.

Now, I am aware that some of the distrust within this fandom comes from the fact that Robert has cheated multiple times. Emmerdale took a risk when they decided to make Robert Bi, as we all know he has tendencies for cheating, but we also have seen Robert bend over backwards over the last year to prove to Aaron how much his changed. It’s clear how much he loves him, for god sakes he would have stayed in the car and drowned with him, if that’s not undying love then I don’t know what to tell people--and I’m not going to get into how I don’t feel their relationship is unbalanced because this post is already long and you’ve all stopped reading.

Anyway, Biphobia, where this was all leading too. The reason Rebecca is getting such hate, and Ed would not have is because individuals who identify has Bi have a stigma hanging over them. All Bi people will at some point cheat on their partner, why can’t they just choose? They want to play the field, their too greedy and can’t make up their mind.

So for a lot of people, Robert cheating (apart from the character trait) seem’s a lot more plausible because let’s face it, a lot of these stigmas are ingrained into people because of society, and at some point or another were all guilty of this because we’re all products of our society's. So yes, if Rebecca had been a guy, and he had flirted with Robert, said character, would have gotten the same amount of hate I’m sure. But if it had been Ed, and the situation had been reversed there wouldn’t have been as much, if even any at all.

As always this is my opinion I don’t speak for all Bi people or Emmerdale fans just myself. Feel free to disagree with me. If you want to chat about it, feel free to ask me anything (just please be respectful.)

#emmerdale #I did not go into misogyny which i do feel like this fandom has so please don't kill me

9 notes · View notes

vanphongchiasehcm · 5 years

Text

Creating Psychologically Safe Workplaces: A Q&A With Camille Wilson, Founder of Grow Together Now

Grow Together Now is a social startup based out of Hub Australia that helps companies create psychologically safe workplaces.

Psychologically safe workplaces are environments in which people are comfortable being and expressing themselves.

Unlike physical safety in the workplace, psychological safety is complex, intangible, at times overwhelming.

Founded in 2018, Grow Together Now is a social startup that’s focused on changing how companies address mental health in the workplace by creating and implementing initiatives that promote psychologically safe environments.

Grow Together Now is part of Hub Australia’s Flexi-Impact program, which aims to support purpose-driven businesses by offering one percent of its total member capacity as a complimentary 12-month membership. For Camille Wilson, Founder of Grow Together Now, being a part of the Hub Australia community has allowed her to “go somewhere, have a space to be creative, and to grow a cause that I am so passionate about.”

Allwork.Space talked with Wilson about what psychologically safe workplaces are, the importance of creating these safe environments, and the different ways in which companies can begin to create psychologically safe workplaces. Rather than just focusing on wellness initiatives in ergonomic furniture, the right temperature, and plants, companies can instead shift their focus to leadership and communications in order to encourage employees to open up.

Allwork.Space: Let’s start with the basics. Tell us about Grow Together Now.

Grow Together Now is a social startup that is dedicated to changing the way we see mental health in workplaces and within our community. I founded Grow Together Now in mid-2018 after I had spent 12 months prior recovering from severe generalised anxiety disorder. At the time I was unwell, I was working for a large bank in Australia and, although they did their best to support me, I noticed that at the end of the day that there was a huge gap between what I was going through and how they thought to best support me.

I have lived with mental health issues since the young age of 16 years old when I was diagnosed with Major Depression. This being an incredibly young age to be diagnosed and given a mental health recovery plan, I was on a personal mission to never let another teenager feel the same way that I did. As part of this quest, I continued on from high school to study a Bachelor of Psychology, from which I hoped to become a clinical psychologist. In my studies, it came to my attention that workplaces were in fact one of the biggest triggers that can make or break a mental health disorder so, instead of pursuing a clinical career to help people once they’ve reached the doctor’s office, I instead wanted to play a preventative role to avoid people getting there in the first place by becoming a human resources professional.

This passion into mental health ebbed and flowed throughout my early 20’s and it was in 2017 when I became unwell again that I remembered why I started working in HR in the first place. After having to leave the workforce in early 2018 as my recovery wasn’t allowing me to go back full time to my job, I was forced to think of an alternative career that I could support my mental health but still see out my vision. This is how Grow Together Now began.

Allwork.Space: In your website, you talk about creating psychologically safe workplaces. What are psychologically safe workplaces and how can companies begin to create one?

I think one of the biggest challenges our workplaces face is that they are disconnected from what psychological safety really means. Although it fits within our workplace health and safety structures, many organisations and leaders don’t connect to its true meaning.

Psychological safety is defined as the extent in which a workplace encompasses “a climate in which people are comfortable being (and expressing) themselves”. It’s a clear definition.

However, we’ve long been taught about the physical safety of our workplace, instead of the much more powerful psychological safety of it. We know how to move boxes safely out of the way from our colleagues; we know we need to make sure our desks are ergonomically friendly; we know if there is a spill, we need a big yellow sign. Physical safety is tangible, it is more practical, and we can see it almost as a yes or no answer.

Psychological safety, on the other hand, is complex. It is broad, vague, and sometimes can feel overwhelming for businesses to handle. Psychological safety can be further defined to look at any circumstance that a workplace has control over that could impact an employee’s comfort in being themselves. Now, isn’t that an opened kettle of fish?

Beside it being broad and sometimes overwhelming, it doesn’t for a moment mean that companies can’t start making initial changes that can overall improve the psychological safety of their workplace. A great place to start is to begin understanding your employees: what makes them feel safe vs unsafe? Is there an inclusion problem? Is it a leadership problem? It is a long-held misalignment with the company values?

To begin to understand how a business can improve psychological safety, it first needs to understand what its employees are thinking and feeling, and ultimately, where the gaps lie.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Allwork.Space: Psychological safety, to a certain extent then, means creating spaces where people are comfortable to speak about mental health issues and their feelings. This, however, remains a challenging issue for many companies and employees. Many professionals don’t feel comfortable disclosing their personal problems or challenges in the workplace for fear of being judged, fired, etc. In your experience, what are the main challenges that prevent companies and individuals in them from openly speaking about mental health?

There are a number of challenges – some much more deep-seated than others. One of the biggest, and most obvious, is the utmost stigmatisation of mental health. It wasn’t until the early 1900’s that we realised that calling the mentally unwell “insane” was the wrong thing to do. It then wasn’t until the 1940’s that we actually introduced a diagnostic manual to understand the different spectrum of those that sit within the mental health arena. That was less than 100 years ago, and although mental health research and attention is on the rise, it hasn’t been until recently that we started to open our eyes to it.

Like psychological safety, mental health is complex. It doesn’t just include those who have the traditional views of mentally unwell that sit within the patient floors of hospitals seeking help, but it also includes those who might struggle without seeking help, and those that are recovering, or even those that are healthy but just need to work on a few things.

Individuals don’t speak up because ultimately mental ill-health is seen as a weakness, as a failure, and as something that we should be ashamed of. Although I am open about my mental illness, there are definitely elements of it in which I’ve struggled to open up about, with fear that people will judge me or won’t see past it when it comes to a new job, a new friendship, or a new opportunity.

Mental health is stigmatised are for a host of reasons, but predominantly because we have been fed this weird sense of fear about it. It is a little bit of an unknown and it isn’t as tangible as our physical health. We cannot test our mental health with a thermometer; we cannot check how our recovery is going through a blood test; we aren’t given the “all clear” after a physical examination from our doctors.

Mental health is an ebbing and flowing process for each individual and each individual experience is so different from the rest. As humans, we like to compartmentalise things. We like to know how things work and where they sit. But, with mental health, we cannot do that, and it scares us.

Allwork.Space: Not only does it scare us, but I believe we don’t fully understand the scope of mental health. For example, I believe companies and individuals struggle to fully comprehend how much battling with day to day issues such as stress and anxiety greatly affect a person’s life. To a certain extent, at least in the professional realm, stress has been normalized and it’s part of work. While it’s normal to experience high-levels of stress every now and then, it should be the exception and not the norm. In your experience, what are the most common mental health issues that affect a person’s life the most?

Anxiety and depression are the most common mental health issues that an Australian adult will deal with in their life. One in four Australians will have a mental health issue in their lifetime, and 1 in 5 over the past 12 months. That means that, even if you have only 20 employees, almost 25% of your workforce are being impacted by mental health issues.

Having a mental health issue, be it from burnout to having a severe mental illness, can have a debilitating impact on life. It affects you physically, mentally, and emotionally. It can cause you to lose performance ability at work, it can impact your relationships, and if help isn’t sought, it can potentially cause a serious health issue that needs formalised medical intervention.

Learning to be more open about mental health, talking about it like our physical health, and building the right skills to manage it is one of the most profound opportunities that a workplace can provide to their employees. There will be a time in the future that there won’t be a question mark in offering mental health initiatives in the workplace. So, the question stands, what is your workplace doing about it?

Allwork.Space: Companies around the world are increasingly adopting wellness initiatives. However, in your website you mention how a clinical focus and wellness initiatives that focus on physical health aren’t necessarily the best way to address mental health. Why is that?

Needless to say, this statement needs some further explaining. It is never to say that addressing wellness initiatives and focusing on physical health is a bad thing. It is a great thing! Companies that encourage their employees to get a better night’s sleep, eat healthier choices, and to exercise more, are positively influencing a person’s body and mind.

The premise behind saying that addressing physical health is not the best way to address mental health is when we start to move past the employees who simply need some minor lifestyle changes to those who are in genuine need for a mindset shift about how they think, behave and process information. It is one thing to hand someone a carrot and a yoga mat, but if that person doesn’t like carrots and is embarrassed that they cannot touch their toes in yoga, then those two things aren’t going to be much use them.

What companies can be doing instead is investing part of their budget to create a paired approach where, in addition to the physical wellness initiatives, there is also a shift in focus to changing the behavioural mindset of the employee, so that when you do hand them the carrot and yoga mat, they understand why you are doing it and then they might be more inclined to use them.

In addition to this, I think companies address mental health by focusing on the “positive” and “fun” side of mental health. Having to deal with serious mental health cases in the workplace is tough and fact is that there’s a tendency to where companies and individuals prefer to avoid these tough conversations entirely.

Employees who suffer from mental illness often suffer in silence, and those who finally speak up are often faced with fear and disagreement from leadership teams. It’s not that leaders within a company don’t want to help, it’s mostly that they simply don’t know how to help.

This is where Grow Together Now comes into it. We help your employees understand themselves, who they are and why they think the way they do, and we help your leaders be the people they need to be when an employee reaches out for help.

Allwork.Space: It comes back to the fact that people need to feel safe and comfortable enough to open up and reach out for help without fear of remediation. How can creating a psychologically safe workplace contribute to this?

There is a vast amount of research that shows how a sense of belonging and meaning impact our mental health. I frequently refer to a framework developed by Martin Seligman that proposes that mental health is impacted by five areas of our life: PERMA (Positivity, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, Achievements).

Given that at least 4 of those 5 can sit within a workplace, there’s without a doubt a relationship between the psychological safety of the workplace and the respective mental health of employees.

Bear in mind, this isn’t to say that some employees may still be mentally unwell in psychologically safe workplaces, and some employees may remain mentally well in psychologically unsafe workplaces.

Afterall, a combination of factors impact our mental health, but one can’t deny that the workplace is a significant contributor to mental and physical health. Look at today’s wellness trends that focus on the mind-body connection. If one of them isn’t working or functioning optimally, the other won’t either. It’s all interconnected; if someone isn’t happy in the workplace, they will likely find it more difficult to be happy in other aspects of their life.

Allwork.Space: Can you share some examples of how companies can create a psychologically safe space?

Let’s imagine you just finished your annual employee survey. The results are in and it’s not great news: your employees are disengaged. You probably didn’t need a survey to tell you because you’ve been increasingly receiving reports of possible mental health cases from your team. Still, revenue results are strong and you’ve just put your senior leadership through a new course on bringing in new business. Shareholders are happy, but your staff are not. What can you do about it?

There is a clear issue within your workforce and there are a number of ways you can work with it.

You could do a further deep dive to understand the issues that are affecting your team. This will achieve a once off result on what your employees are thinking. But there are other alternatives that instead of providing insights this one time can provide companies with a continual free-flow of information sourced by the employees themselves. Companies can consider investing time, money, and resources to upskill employees and leaders so that they are better equipped to create and encourage open forms of communication.

Such an approach can empower employees to speak their minds. For example, employees can report that they feel stressed out and that they feel their health and safety isn’t prioritised. It’s important to gather that information, but also – and more importantly – to use it to make the right decision. In this particular case, companies might think that if workers need to de-stress that they can host physical wellness activities at the workplace like yoga classes, stress management, massages, etc. But this doesn’t necessarily solve the problem, especially if yoga classes take place during lunch, then they would need to eat quickly or skip lunch. It doesn’t end up being a stress-relieving activity at all. Instead, companies should think about reviewing workload and making sure employees have taken their vacations, for example.

In the end, the opportunity for companies to invest into psychologically safety isn’t just about focusing on the typical and traditional ways of “safety”, but to think innovatively and put the employee at the heart of any design.

Văn phòng ảo hcm InnoHouse Văn phòng chia sẻ hcm InnoHouse Coworking space InnoHouse 0981391177 #vanphongao #vanphongchiase #coworkingspace #innohouse https://goo.gl/maps/szgYRTWbF1w 202 Hoàng Văn Thụ, P.9, Q.Phú Nhuận, Hồ Chí Minh

0 notes

ggypsykaate-blog · 5 years

Text

“I used to think if I photographed someone enough I could never lose them”- Nan Goldin —‘To what extent can a photographic image ever really represent the reality it visually embodies?’—

The photographic image is commonly thought of as a method to preserve the memory and existence of a person or thing. It’s the art of selection, choosing a single frame of the moment and deeming it significant and worthy of immortalisation. In a very literal sense, through a process of science and light, photography allows us to physically experience the past again, but to what extent can an image ever really be honestly regarded as a true representation of the reality it visually embodies?

-The legitimacy of the Photographic Image- Since its invention, photographs have been used as a thing of evidence, something unlikely can be validated by showing an image of it occurring. Beginning in Paris 1871, where the Paris police used photographs in the murderous roundups of communards, cameras have been used to record and incriminate. The use of camera in surveillance would suggest a honest and contextual validity in the referents, images possessing the ability to condemn by actualising tangible evidence of a moment existing. Though when, admittedly debatable, a photograph only can represent one singular moment in time how reliable can its narrative of the entire story be? Regarding the photographer as the story teller, they can only give the viewer a fleeting glimpse of life making it almost impossible to accurately capture reality from that snapshot. In my own work, I have toyed with both the ideas of the snapshot and extended moment. Inspiration from artists like Henri Carter-Bresson, who manage to, in the ‘decisive moment’, capture such an obviously fleeting second led me to focus on the immediate, the temporary and my ability to form an accurate representation of that. Using what Martin Parr referred to as ‘processed nostalgia’, I experimented with shooting on instant film trying to emphasise the individuality and uniqueness of every shot and therefore every moment. Polaroid as a method arguably can be considered a more trustworthy option compared to its digital counterparts which are susceptible to editing. In one of Wim Wender’s newest projects ‘Instant Stories’ he discusses the power of the instantaneous image. He reminisces on its ability to turn the intangible moment tangible in a fraction of a second with a sense of nostalgia that correlates with its decreasing popularity. Instant film seems to effortlessly produce a significance and guarantee of individuality and the snapshot aesthetic which is symbolic of one place in time, alluding its power to honestly represent the moment it captures.

At at talk at the Tate gallery recently, an audience of 150 people were asked how many of them believed a photograph could be real. Just five people put there hands up. As society and technology develops it does become harder to have trust in the photographic images we see. With technological advancements like photoshop and other editing programs comes the most obvious way of falsifying an image, for example in the media where we are constantly bombarded by these ‘air-brushed’ images. Now more than ever, we are having to scrutinise photographs for misrepresentation of reality and debate how much this photorealism replication of the fragmented moment really matters. The instinctive acceptance of what ever a photographic image shows having physically occurred is now naive, I could sit down in front of my laptop for five minutes and create an image which presents me standing on top of a erupting volcano but there is no legitimacy in this. Despite still being a visual representation of a moment, photography is now no longer universally trustworthy, our faith must be in photographers to present their own and societies truth.

-The Taints of Nostalgia and Emotion on the Photographic Image- Photographs, being visual representations of memories, are associated with a bittersweet reaction and reflection, which can catalyse and provoke emotions of joy or more commonly melancholy which affects the way the images are interpreted. Susan Sontag writes “Most subjects photographed are, just by virtue of being photographed, touched with pathos.” Its not surprisingly that most images are impacted by the passage of time, they act as a reminder of times and things gone, thus creating a common characteristic of being emotionally loaded throughout photography. It is possible for a photograph to become liable to this taint of nostalgia, limiting its ability to truly represent an accurate version of reality due to the high connotations of emotion. Photographers and viewers alike can attach emotional meaning to images, impacting the way the image is viewed and accepted by the individual. Nostalgia can work as a punctum in several cases, the wounding prick of the image being the acknowledgement of the passage of time and the change inevitable with that. An image of a loved one becomes more precious after you lose them, or an image of a child in the late 19th century become more haunting when you acknowledge they’ve lived and died by now. As an outsider and an observer I can partake in the mourning of a stranger through their photograph. On the news the story of the person, who has no relation to me, murdered seems to resonate more when you see their smiling portrait next to it. Sontag writes “ To photograph is to take part in another persons (or thing’s) mortality.”, implying the awareness of the photographer of the fragility of life compared to the preservation of the photographic image. She also describes photography as ‘the inventory for mortality’, taking photographs documents mortality, visually showing the implications of time moving on, like the process of ageing. This could start to explain why people take pictures, the fear of forgetting is lessened when you have a photo album of reminders. To “take part in another person’s (or thing’s) morality” the photographer must also be aware of the fleeting nature of the moment, similarly to Henri Carter-Bresson’s ‘Decisive Moment’, the frame exists for one moment alone and then disappears into the abyss of the past. A photograph eventually ‘drifts away into a soft pastness, open to any kind of reading’, generalised as history and tainted by nostalgia it blurs into a sentimental fragment lost in a time it no longer belongs.

Feelings of nostalgia and reminders of human mortality have extensive emotive powers over individuals due to a fundamental fear of change and death, images have this partial preservation ability that can consequently catalyse strong reactions. The past as a punctum is especially effective in provoking a response due to the emotional hold it can have on individuals. Some of the most emotive photographs I have ever taken I can pinpoint to one of the most emotional weeks of my life. The images themselves are nothing spectacular and an outsider would probably judge them unremarkably mundane but each time I revisit them I am surprised by the hold they still have over me. Looking at the photographs has the ability to rekindle and recreate the emotional state I was in at the time I took them, suggesting the visual representations, which are consequently reminders of the memories, are loaded with the emotional connotations of reality. There is something evidently valid in the interpreted reality of an image which can transport you emotionally to when it was taken. Due to the varying emotional capacity images can provoke, its possible for individuals to interpret images differently and therefore the version of reality accepted is never consistent. In the preface of ‘The Picture of Dorian Grey’, Oscar Wilde wrote “It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.” I find tremendous truth in this, regardless of what part of life the artist had the intent to hold the mirror to, if any, in their work, it is always down to the individual viewer to what they will take from it and relate it to themselves. How the reality of an image is presented and therefore processed will also always be liable to the opinion and judgment of the photographer. A subjective image is an interpreted reality, but surely there is no such thing as an objective one?

-The Influence of the Photographer’s Gaze- Presumably a photograph must always be subjective, due to the control of the photographer. Photography is the art of selection compared the art of creation. In photography, the photographer begins with the entirety of the world and then focuses the camera’s frame to disclose and select what they want to present. The viewer is experiencing the world through the photographers eyes, its what they’ve seen, deemed worthy and chosen to compose in a certain way. Whilst some photographers may share similar styles of taking photographs, no two people could take the exact same image when dealing with the same subject due to the unique artistic eye of the individual. If we can imply that all images are subjective then we can’t generalise that all photographs honestly represent a universal reality of society but instead a photographers individual truth. After looking at various artists, all with their own styles and subjects, I sincerely think a considerable amount of the way photographers present their own individual truths is consequence of their involvement with their referents.

In Nan Goldin and Bruce Davidson’s work I see the spectrum of subjectivity in regard to taking the photographic image, though both seem like honest documentations of society, I believe the differences in their work derive from their contrasting execution and engagement. Goldin’s work radiates the intimate connections she had with the world she photographed, whilst in relation Davidson’s images seem to give an objective insight into the people he documents, like fly on the wall his position as an outsider is apparent. An ideal example of this in Davidson’s work is his body of work from 1959 where he followed around a young gang from Brooklyn called The Jokers. From their first tattoos to beach days down at Coney Island, he documented their lives in their very own New York subculture. Reading about them in the newspapers first, Davidson ventured down to Prospect Park to attempt to gain access and insight into the group. He wrote, “My way of working is to enter an unknown world, explore it over a period of time and learn from it.” He referred to himself as ‘ a kind of explorer’ and a majority of Davidson’s work all share a systematic nature to the way he stays with one area until he is satisfied he has captured the sense of it, with and without the camera. On the other side of the spectrum is Nan Goldin’s photographic style which seems which exudes the emotional connections she already had with her subjects before photographing them with a raw frankness. She commented “I didn’t care about ‘good’ photography, I cared about complete honesty.” Which confirms her devotion to the truth and her ability to represent it. Her writing suggests her need to assemble these true replicas of people deriving from her own personal loss, “I lost the real memory of my sister…I never want to lose the real memory of anyone again.” Her images have become iconic representations of the obscure sub-cultures she lived and loved in, shots of groups previously taboo like the transvestite community in NYC have defined her career. Famously in one interview she said “I don’t think anyone has the right to photograph a stranger.” Which is a clear indication of her relationships with her models, the gravity she places on each image and unlike Davidson, her central place in the world she photographs. Though whether an objective, outsiders perspective or the insiders privilege produces the most honest portrayal of reality is controversial.

- The Paradox of the Photographic Image- As much as we wish it could, the photograph will never be equivalent to its subject which resides in the realm of reality. No matter how much its visually resembles the referent or how real the emotional load of it may be, it will always be solely an image. Magritte confronted this idea of representative realism in his surrealist paintings, exploring the line between reality and illusion by making the viewer really consider what they are looking at. In one of his paintings ‘The Treachery of Images’ he juxtaposes a representation of a pipe with the comment ‘Ceci n’est pas une pipe.’ which translates from french to ‘This is not a pipe.’ This painting was surprisingly controversial but ultimately he is correct. It is not a pipe, it is merely a painting of a pipe. Magritte commented “if I had written on my picture ‘this is a pipe’, I’d have been lying.” showing his understanding of the unavoidable gap between the real and the recreated. Comparing the photographic image to a dream, Barthes comments on photography’s inability to ever really capture and recreate the referent. “I know I am seeing her, but I am not seeing her” exposes it for the superficial, purely two dimensional way it replicates reality. Like in a dream, the viewer is consciously aware of what they are seeing and able to identify it as a member of real life, but also present is the subconscious knowledge that this pastiche of the person can never equal to the actually being. In grief you may seek out images of lost things to console pain but the referent of an image, despite being familiar, can never provide adequate comfort as it will always fall short. I believe part of the bittersweet paradox of photography resigns/resides in essentially being a optical illusion, enticing people with the promise to preserve the moment but never able to fully do that. In the end, the photographic image is a reminder of the memory, it is not the actual memory and it is not the actual subjects, just a joyful or melancholy catalyst. The full quote of Goldin’s is “I used to think if I photographed someone enough I could never lose them. In fact they show me how much I have lost.” Eventually the spectator is looking through the photo albums of their past is creating their own private view of loss; Nan Goldin says a prayer for each of the dead as she flicks through her ‘Ballad of Sexual Dependency’.

Ultimately I do not believe a image can ever truly represent a universal reality, nor do I believe it is its duty to do so. When an image alone can only ever represent a singular fragment of an infinite possibilities of moments, to have faith in the ‘decisive moment’ to be consistently regarded as a honest portrayal of all society is unrealistic. In a modern society the photographic image is liable to numerous factors that could taint its perspective and gaze on reality, obvious methods of this would be falsification and editing. Though more subtle impacts on the photographic image include the taints of emotional and nostalgia which can manipulate the way the photographs individually are accepted by a viewer. Each spectator, including the photographer, attaches their own meaning and associations to every piece of art, as each person has their own experiences and specific realities which determines their internal schemas and information processing. Despite this, the photographer’s role will always have a degree of control over how they present a certain stimulus, by composing the image the spectator views the subject through photographers perspective. Due to this and the indisputably fact that photographs will never be fully equal to their subjects, I don’t believe photographs have to be, or should be fully regarded as their physical counterparts in reality. Instead the photographic image represents the unique truth of the photographer not society, its their eye and their gaze which produces images that aren’t just visual imitation but allude to how they scrutinise the their world

0 notes