TOW #7- What Family Really Means

Frank Bruni is an op-ed columnist for The New York Times and was once a staff writer for The Times Magazine. He reflects on diverse topics such as politics, education, violence, gay rights, and his personal life as a gay man. In his essay, “What Family Really Means,” Bruni responds to the Synod of Bishops on the Family, which is a meeting where bishops of the Roman Catholic Church reconsider their limitations on family within their community. This includes welcoming unmarried couples, allowing divorce and remarried couples, or accepting children of same sex couples into their church. Bruni directs his attention to religious families who may fall on the conservative side, playing to their beliefs in order to make his point. Several times, he uses statistics in order to play towards the catholic perspective, using poll statistics that state “… while respondents clearly viewed a family headed by a father and a mother who are married to each other as the ideal, most of them did not view it as the only acceptable situation. More than 80 percent were O.K. with divorced parents, single parents or unmarried parents living together. More than 65 percent were O.K. with gay or lesbian parents,” (para 16). With this one statistic, he eliminates most arguments that Catholics may have depending on the limitations on marriage. He expresses that if a majority are okay with expanding their beliefs, the Roman Catholic Church should consider doing so as well. Bruni also uses an anecdote in order to make his argument. However, in order to follow his belief, his anecdote does not focus on the Catholic religion but instead on what a family is as an entirety. He speaks of his friend Elli, who helps boys in Zimbabwe take on American education and helps guide them through their lives as developing adults. Though she is not related to them by blood or law, they made a commitment to each other. The boys rely on Elli and give her a relationship while she in return cares for them and keeps them as safe as she could. Though they are not related by blood, Bruni looks at them as a family. Later, he also brings up the AIDS epidemic that swept the gay community in the 1950s.  Bruni says, “I saw this happen time and again in the 1980s and early 1990s, when AIDS ravaged gay America and many sufferers found themselves abandoned by relatives, whose religions prodded them toward judgment instead of compassion. Friends filled that gap, rushing in as saviors, stepping up as providers, signing on as protectors. Where families were absent, families were born,” (para 20). Once again, he advocates the idea that family is not just ties at birth. He says that a family is any group that can traverse life better as a community than the individual can do on their own. In the end, he is using these references and logos in order to appeal to the Catholic community and encourage them to broaden their perspective on the idea of family. He believes that they focus too much on blood and chromosomes, when the real importance should rely on commitments and strengths. Personally, I believe that Bruni did a brilliant job with his piece. However, I fear that I may have a bias when reading this. I believe and agree with everything that Bruni is saying in his essay, but looking at the information that he puts on the table, someone who is looking from the Catholic perspective might be encouraged to agree. Overall, his thesis was clear and all of his points were well addressed in order to appease his audience.

TOW #6- A Conversation on the Edge of Human Perception

Christopher Bollas is a British psychoanalyst and author of many books studying different branches of psychology, primarily the mental disorder schizophrenia. In his memoir, "A Conversation on the Edge of Human Perception", he depicts his many interactions with his subject, a woman he calls Lucy. Lucy is a schizophrenic, and often time her hallucinations and long-winded stories are the prime subject of his research. Despite schizophrenia having no definable cure, Bollas seems to find a way to help diminish her hallucinations with simple conversation and analysis. As a psychoanalyst, Bollas follows the belief that the way the mind works is settled within the unconscious brain and that mental disorders are manifested under 'hidden' circumstances. By following this approach to psychology, Bollas believes that every behaviorism that Lucy portrays has a trigger, and puts that together in order to help her feel better. In comparison to other strategies, such as the neurobiological approach, which focuses on chemical imbalance, he believes that faults in personalities or behaviorism have a more mentally rooted cause. Through his memoir, Bollas is trying to encourage other psychologists to use the psychoanalytic method when it comes to therapy, especially for schizophrenics. In his memoir, he uses cause and effect in order to explain Lucy's behavior and to explain how the psychoanalytic approach works. He discusses how she believed that she was once attacked by a dragon. When he looks back on their conversation, he discovers what the source may have been for her vivid hallucination. He says "I suddenly realized that earlier in the session I had told her it was good that of late her bad memories were not “dragging on,” and I said that I thought my use of this phrase might have brought an image of the dragon into her mind," (para 13). He brings up a connection that the reader may not have noticed directly in order to give a purpose to her behavior. Bollas also describes that it is often that schizophrenics are treated with medication opposed to therapeutic help. He says "Sadly, many of today’s schizophrenics receive powerful antipsychotic medications in hospitals and are discharged on a cocktail of drugs that dulls their lives. Their zombielike states are caused not so much by their mental alterity as by their treatment. The tragic irony of this approach is that the patient is met with a process parallel to schizophrenia itself: radical incarceration, mind-altering actions, dehumanization, isolation," (para 18). His word choice, such as the words 'zombie' and 'dehumanization' gives the reader a sense o responsibility. It makes the reader believe that somehow they have done something in order to encourage this oppression, and makes us feel pity the schizophrenic opposed to shun them. With teh use of Lucy, as well, he provides us with a face. She is a character that the reader can see and understand and listen to, and the reader can make of her what they will. However, anything that the reader may interpret from her behavior is entirely their opinion and is not depicted by the author for the reader. Bollas, using his strategies, provides us with a rather interesting and influential memoir. By placing the responsibility on the reader to develop their own opinions and beliefs on the schizophrenic, it forces the reader to make the choice on their own. However, it is the logic that supports the second part of his point. So many times psychologists turn to medical attention opposed to communication and understanding when psychologists are trying to help a person with a mental disorder. Instead, Bollas believes that psychologists should turn to the psychoanalytic approach in order to properly assess the person that is being dealt with.

TOW #5- Anti-Abuse Advertisement

The ANAR foundation (Aid to Adolescents and Children at Risk) is a Spanish organization focused on helping children or teens that are facing abusive situations. This particular advertisement, as you can see, shows two advertisements at one. On the left, there is an image of a young boy with the quote at the top (translated from Spanish) "Sometimes, child abuse is only visible to the child suffering from it." On the right, however, we see a picture of the same boy now bruised and bloodied. Faintly in white, the words say "If somebody hurts you, phone us and we'll help you," along with an emergency number. The most interesting part about this particular advertisement is depending on the perspective that you are looking at it from, you see different images. Typically, adults who are taller than about five feet would see the image on the left, the sentence being shown being used as a warning. Those under five feet, who are primarily children, see the image on the right. They get a hidden message so that even with a guardian they can see the image secretly without alerting their parent. That way, if they really are being abused, their parent would never know how they would have gotten the given information and the child would not be held responsible. On both ends, Pathos is being used very strongly, however, it is being used more so on the image on the right. Though the graphic content may be too much for children to see at that age, they would probably be at an old enough age that, since they can read, they would understand. The image on the left primarily focuses on the image of the child, sticking with a monotone color scheme in order to make adults understand the message without having to look so much deeper into it. However, it is letting the adults know that they may not see how they are hurting their child, but the child knows how much it is hurting themselves. It is simply giving the parents a yellow light, warning them to stop what they might be doing before it is too late. Personally, I believe that this is a very powerful piece that really does portray abuse and does its best to help children in need. However, I find that the image on the right may be a bit too much of the audience it is aimed for. According to the article explaining the image, the audience is meant to be children ages 10 and under. I'd find that, in that age, it would be a bit much to see a child that could be me beaten and bloodied. To a further extent, it may also be traumatizing. Typically children don't understand when they are being abused, as well, as there is some type of manipulation or conditioning that is put forth behind it that makes children think that they deserve it as 'punishment'. However, I believe that his image does its purpose. It both raises awareness and gives children a way out in a unique and powerful way that uses interesting strategies to appeal to different audiences.

TOW #4- IRB Post: Rethinking Narcissism

In ­Rethinking Narcissism, Dr. Craig Malkin puts an interesting perspective on the notorious mental disorder. As addressed in the last IRB post, he shares his belief that there are different levels of narcissism, the middle ground being the healthiest. In the first of his four parts in the book, he gives the background knowledge behind narcissism and describes the spectrum. The second part describes the difference between healthy and unhealthy narcissism.

Being a scientist, Malkin obviously provides plenty of statistics to appeal to his ethos and logos. He turns to several studies, surveys, and psychological analyses in order to support his thesis. For example, he says “In fact, numerous studies have found that people who see themselves as better than average are happier more sociable, and often more physically healthy than their humbler peers,” (Malkin 310).

Malkin also addresses the origins and history behind narcissism using allusions. For example, he speaks of Aristotle who asked the question “’Who should the good man love more? Himself or others?’ –and answered it. ‘The good man is particularly selfish.’” (Malkin 397) On the contrary, he addresses the opposing argument as well, explaining why narcissism may have been looked at negatively in history. He both addresses Buddha’s teachings that self is an illusion and the Christian teachings that too much of oneself becomes the sin, pride.

When describing the narcissism spectrum, he uses different anecdotes to properly exemplify the traits that he is describing. For example, when describing living at the lowest end of the narcissism spectrum, also considered ‘echoism’, he says “I once worked with a woman who rigidly refused to let anyone help her or support her, even after her husband died… she was determined to be alone instead of surrounded by supportive companions giving her special attention,” (Malkin 583). On the opposite end, he describes the extreme narcissists using Bernie Madoff, “who swindled hundreds of millions of dollars from his clients and who, when caught, scoffed at the ‘incompetence’ of the investigators for not asking the right questions. Even as he faced life in prison, he still managed to feel superior,” (589). Using these ancedotes, he is able to also give an example of what each type of narcissist is like. He provides different examples too, addressing healthy narcissism, introverted narcissism and more. However, to write on all of those would have to take up another post.

So far, Malkin does an impressive job of holding the reader’s attention and providing information in a way that is both engaging and informative. He creates a broad audience using his many rhetorical strategies, and keeps the reader entertained the whole time the book is in their hands.

Note: I am reading this book on a kindle, so the citations are in reference to a location on the kindle, not page numbers.

Also, just for fun: Dr. Malkin provides a narcissism test in his book. If you are interested, I found a shorter version online: http://www.drcraigmalkin.com/the-narcissism-test I scored in the middle at a 6, which is a healthy narcissist.