Reply to comment

In many ways, I agree with Adi and Mary about accepting one’s experience, feeling it, residing in it and using it as a potential grounds for change, for growth and understanding. It seems that, for some, it might be useful to contextualize “illness” as part of a story that then moves one to a new place, maximizing individual potential. On the other hand, any argument for acceptance of one’s situation is necessarily a simplification of human experience, for there are countless incidences when accepting a story, for some, means feeling hopeless, scared and disempowered. If the argument is for increasing awareness of intrapersonal conflict and the potential to use this for positive change, I see this as a valuable addition to the conversation about mental illness. However, there are many instances in which this is not a readily available option. It goes back, I think, to the idea that the ability to experience conflict and have it be generative necessitates a vision of something other than that which one is experiencing, another story that exists simultaneously with the current story. Without the possibility of a new story, one that involves less tumult, a sustainable vision of something less conflicted, embracing one’s “pain,” owning it and leading an “examined life” may lead to increasing distress, or a sense of paralysis.

I think much of the isolation stems from having removed experience from a context in which pain, grief, disappointment, anxiety etc. are common experiences, shared experiences to varying degrees. The move towards an embrace of ever narrower definitions of “normal” and a diminished sense of interpersonal connections has led to more social isolation, an increased sense of isolation in one’s experience, when, in actuality, that experience is not so “different” after all. The logical end to this particular paradigm is to seek a “cure,” not to respond to the challenges and opportunities presented by such an experience. We have reached a place, collectively, where our bodies (yes, our minds, too) are seen in times of duress as the enemy. Illness happens to us, but is not a part of us. And for some, this may be a useful way in which to construct an experience of illness, to be apart from it and address it as an outsider. For others, however, this may lead to increased alienation and difficulty responding to the challenges and potential gains to be made when mental health is in flux. Surely, health and mental health are not products of simple cause and effect relationships, and perhaps should not unto themselves be a goal. The very language of "illness" and "health" seems to exist not along a continuum but as an all or nothing, defined set of milestones and endpoints that undermines individual, nuanced experiences and catapults illness into the realm of battle: doctor vs. unruly body. I think this framwork is limited and in some cases detrimental. However, I maintain that bringing nuance into the conversation does not necessitate abandoning psychotropic medications, for example, that have, indeed, made the difference for many between living in a deep, dark, hole and the ability to be a part of the world in ways that one might desire. I see therapy, whether psychodynamic, CBT or anything in between, as a way to further understand one's experience of herself in the world, her place in the world...