Click here to Introduction
Disorder or Disruption?
Bi-Polar Disorder is significantly characterized by extreme shifts in emotion. There are two basic types, one involving sudden and often fleeting emotional sifts, while the other holds on to the emotional extremes longer. Although the mania that comes with it can be attractive, the depression is frightening for everyone. I am biased when it comes to the diagnosis of BPD, because I believe that emotions are natural and crucial to the human condition and, since we all experience them to different degrees, it is not so much a physiological problem as it is a behavioral problem.
Let me take an aside to explain that I understand our bodies are chemical miracles and those chemicals can get distorted in such a way as to cause problems. I understand that some people have great success controlling their emotions with man-made chemicals, and I do not think they are "Wrong" for doing so. I am not claiming that BPD does not exist, nor that there is a problem. What I am saying is that we have allowed our perception of emotional states to cloud our judgment.
But that's what "disorders" do. They affect the body in a chemical way causing the communication between the brain and the mind to be distorted. As humans we require chemical input. Without air, water and food we will die. Of course there are individuals who have a disorder that requires them to pay close attention to intake. If their chemicals consumed are unbalanced according to their specific needs, it can not only affect their physical health, but their personality and even their decision making abilities, especially when their sugars are low. We call it Diabetes.
Yet when someone has neglected their sugar intake and have become unfocused or cantankerous because of it, as a society we excuse them, often aiding them in their recovery by seeking out the appropriate nourishment or even medication. BPD and other "Emotional Disorders" are not like that. If someone with BPD is having a hard time focusing, maybe because they are at a funeral for example, other people get worried about that individual's ability to maintain "appropriate behavior". Very few people worry about such a thing with a diabetic, even though I have seen them spout out obscenities in a sensitive situation due to a drop in sugars.
What makes the difference? Why do we approach "disorders" in such contrasting ways? Maybe it has to do with the our perception.
When we start by calling a thing a "disorder" we are creating a negativity around that thing. My personal problem with Bi-Polar Disorder is, it manifests in emotional expressions which are influenced as much by outside sources as they are by inside ones. I have a friend who is strictly dedicated to her medical regime to maintain her emotional balance. More often than not this works for her, however when life events occur, losing her mother for example, her "normal" medications are not equipped to deal with the extra emotion. What normally happens in the situations is she returns to the psych ward at the hospital until her medications are adjusted. Looking at her, most professionals would consider her BPD well in control. She knows herself well enough to know when she needs additional aid and is not afraid to ask for help.
I have been told that I have the same disorder. Unlike her, I have no insurance and have already had a very bad reaction attempting to maintain control through medication, so I treat my "disorder" very differently. I also refuse to conform to "normalcy" considering that as part of the problem. I have also had the privilege of observing both other people with "mental disorders" as well as those considered "normal". There really doesn't seem to be that much difference in any of us, other than how we respond to our emotions.
Let's make this clear: The only difference between people is how they respond to their emotions. I am aware that I have extreme reactions, sometimes controllable, sometimes seemingly not. I have no influence on the immediate emotional response to a variable, but I usually have enough sense to check it before it emerges beyond my expression. My standard is to restrain, sharing with others only what I want them to know. This sounds common, but when it comes to emotions most people are self-serving instead of concerned about the impact on another. This is part of the human condition and it is only my "disorder" that makes me any different.
Which is part of why I don't consider it much of a disorder. Because I respond so emotionally to things, I am more concerned about my emotional impact on others. Yes, this can be a problem, especially when I put the feelings of someone else before the needs of my self. It also makes me overly sensitive to the influence of others. The over sensitivity is the only truly disruptive aspect to my BPD.
One of the blessings of my life has been Grandpa's studies of the brain, education and behavior. Because he shared his studies with me, I have become more of an observer of life than a participant. I seek out people's innermost thoughts and their histories. These observations have made me question the impact of culture on our emotional abilities. Obviously an individual's culture has an impact on their attitudes; real men don't cry and real women are barefoot and pregnant. Although these are ideologies that have become cliché’s of the worst sort, the decades of cultural training still has had an impact on the way we think and interact today. If these lessons had been completely overcome, Michael Keaton's "Mr. Mom" wouldn't still be funny all these years later.
We have done with emotional responses what we did with gender; we have created expectations and labeled anything outside those expectations as "Wrong". It is acceptable to cry at a wedding, but not appropriate to sob out-loud. It is acceptable to flip of the driver who cut you off, but not OK to get out and beat the person who hit your car. Those who react with what is considered extreme emotion to outside stimulus are considered to have a disorder.
It's important to understand that this is defined by a social standard, which is in constant flux according to the individuals within the society. There have been societies where death meant the survivors had to mutilate themselves if they wanted to behave appropriately. Forgive me if I consider this an extreme reaction. Looking at some of the emotional outburst considered extreme today, I can't help but wonder if we have created our own disorders.
If so, we hove done this through more than just definitions and standards. We may have created this phenomena of mental disorders in the way we raise our children. According to science, many of these mental disorders are hereditary. Through anecdotal research, family members are discovered to have exhibited symptoms of mental disturbances for many individuals who are declared emotionally incompetent. If this is the case, how did so many people survive this debilitating chemical disorder for generations in order to produce a plethora of psychologically inept individuals today. Surely not everyone with "clinical depression" committed suicide even though they had no "professional help". It could be that the declaration of the thing made it more observable, but what is it that has made it so prominent. Could it really be that nearly every family has a chemical imbalance present, or is there something about this time and place that has served as an incubator for this emotional infection?
I think so. I believe that we are culturing our children into mental disorders. As much as I love and appreciate my grandparents, I can lay a good portion of my emotional disruptions at their feet. It was they who taught me about fairy tales and an idealistic and unrealistic life. In culturing me to believe in "happily ever after", I did not learn about the realities of the difficulties of life. In my particular case the idealism was shattered in such a way as to forever alter my emotional well-being.
This does not mean that I am no longer responsible for me emotional make up. Whatever my early experiences may have been, I am still a free and independent individual, although hindered in my perceptions. My previous experience may have culminated in this being I have become, but I am ultimately in charge of my behavior. Looking at my past to understand why I respond the way I do, does not excuse me from taking responsibility for my responses. Even though my immediate emotional reaction may be uncontrollable, what I do with that response is completely in my control, with or without chemical influence.
This is where the trouble comes in. Without a doubt, there are some medications that affect the way our brain works, and therefore our ability to make decisions. Some of these chemicals are intended to do so because the consumer doesn't trust their own chemicals. If I consume a chemical, then I am responsible for the decisions I make on that chemical. It doesn't matter if a "professional" recommended the chemical or not. It is my responsibility to accept that recommendation or not, then it becomes my responsibility to face any consequences of the decisions I make while under the influence of that medication.
Too often I see people use "emotional disorders" as an excuse for their behavior or the behavior of someone else. The medications, the social stigma, even the perceptions of the individual in question can be blamed for the unhappy state of the world. Everyone has emotional responses, and, not being perfect, some of those responses are inappropriate. According to our current culture, we should just label everyone as "crazy" and excuse hatred and extremism as a manifestation of the disorder that is this world. Then again we could accept that everyone has their own issues to deal with, not always well; take responsibility for ourselves in this moment, and move forward to make the next moment better. Maybe, just maybe, we can turn an epidemic of disorders into a minor disruption in an otherwise amazing and exciting life.
Let me take an aside to explain that I understand our bodies are chemical miracles and those chemicals can get distorted in such a way as to cause problems. I understand that some people have great success controlling their emotions with man-made chemicals, and I do not think they are "Wrong" for doing so. I am not claiming that BPD does not exist, nor that there is a problem. What I am saying is that we have allowed our perception of emotional states to cloud our judgment.
But that's what "disorders" do. They affect the body in a chemical way causing the communication between the brain and the mind to be distorted. As humans we require chemical input. Without air, water and food we will die. Of course there are individuals who have a disorder that requires them to pay close attention to intake. If their chemicals consumed are unbalanced according to their specific needs, it can not only affect their physical health, but their personality and even their decision making abilities, especially when their sugars are low. We call it Diabetes.
Yet when someone has neglected their sugar intake and have become unfocused or cantankerous because of it, as a society we excuse them, often aiding them in their recovery by seeking out the appropriate nourishment or even medication. BPD and other "Emotional Disorders" are not like that. If someone with BPD is having a hard time focusing, maybe because they are at a funeral for example, other people get worried about that individual's ability to maintain "appropriate behavior". Very few people worry about such a thing with a diabetic, even though I have seen them spout out obscenities in a sensitive situation due to a drop in sugars.
What makes the difference? Why do we approach "disorders" in such contrasting ways? Maybe it has to do with the our perception.
When we start by calling a thing a "disorder" we are creating a negativity around that thing. My personal problem with Bi-Polar Disorder is, it manifests in emotional expressions which are influenced as much by outside sources as they are by inside ones. I have a friend who is strictly dedicated to her medical regime to maintain her emotional balance. More often than not this works for her, however when life events occur, losing her mother for example, her "normal" medications are not equipped to deal with the extra emotion. What normally happens in the situations is she returns to the psych ward at the hospital until her medications are adjusted. Looking at her, most professionals would consider her BPD well in control. She knows herself well enough to know when she needs additional aid and is not afraid to ask for help.
I have been told that I have the same disorder. Unlike her, I have no insurance and have already had a very bad reaction attempting to maintain control through medication, so I treat my "disorder" very differently. I also refuse to conform to "normalcy" considering that as part of the problem. I have also had the privilege of observing both other people with "mental disorders" as well as those considered "normal". There really doesn't seem to be that much difference in any of us, other than how we respond to our emotions.
Let's make this clear: The only difference between people is how they respond to their emotions. I am aware that I have extreme reactions, sometimes controllable, sometimes seemingly not. I have no influence on the immediate emotional response to a variable, but I usually have enough sense to check it before it emerges beyond my expression. My standard is to restrain, sharing with others only what I want them to know. This sounds common, but when it comes to emotions most people are self-serving instead of concerned about the impact on another. This is part of the human condition and it is only my "disorder" that makes me any different.
Which is part of why I don't consider it much of a disorder. Because I respond so emotionally to things, I am more concerned about my emotional impact on others. Yes, this can be a problem, especially when I put the feelings of someone else before the needs of my self. It also makes me overly sensitive to the influence of others. The over sensitivity is the only truly disruptive aspect to my BPD.
One of the blessings of my life has been Grandpa's studies of the brain, education and behavior. Because he shared his studies with me, I have become more of an observer of life than a participant. I seek out people's innermost thoughts and their histories. These observations have made me question the impact of culture on our emotional abilities. Obviously an individual's culture has an impact on their attitudes; real men don't cry and real women are barefoot and pregnant. Although these are ideologies that have become cliché’s of the worst sort, the decades of cultural training still has had an impact on the way we think and interact today. If these lessons had been completely overcome, Michael Keaton's "Mr. Mom" wouldn't still be funny all these years later.
We have done with emotional responses what we did with gender; we have created expectations and labeled anything outside those expectations as "Wrong". It is acceptable to cry at a wedding, but not appropriate to sob out-loud. It is acceptable to flip of the driver who cut you off, but not OK to get out and beat the person who hit your car. Those who react with what is considered extreme emotion to outside stimulus are considered to have a disorder.
It's important to understand that this is defined by a social standard, which is in constant flux according to the individuals within the society. There have been societies where death meant the survivors had to mutilate themselves if they wanted to behave appropriately. Forgive me if I consider this an extreme reaction. Looking at some of the emotional outburst considered extreme today, I can't help but wonder if we have created our own disorders.
If so, we hove done this through more than just definitions and standards. We may have created this phenomena of mental disorders in the way we raise our children. According to science, many of these mental disorders are hereditary. Through anecdotal research, family members are discovered to have exhibited symptoms of mental disturbances for many individuals who are declared emotionally incompetent. If this is the case, how did so many people survive this debilitating chemical disorder for generations in order to produce a plethora of psychologically inept individuals today. Surely not everyone with "clinical depression" committed suicide even though they had no "professional help". It could be that the declaration of the thing made it more observable, but what is it that has made it so prominent. Could it really be that nearly every family has a chemical imbalance present, or is there something about this time and place that has served as an incubator for this emotional infection?
I think so. I believe that we are culturing our children into mental disorders. As much as I love and appreciate my grandparents, I can lay a good portion of my emotional disruptions at their feet. It was they who taught me about fairy tales and an idealistic and unrealistic life. In culturing me to believe in "happily ever after", I did not learn about the realities of the difficulties of life. In my particular case the idealism was shattered in such a way as to forever alter my emotional well-being.
This does not mean that I am no longer responsible for me emotional make up. Whatever my early experiences may have been, I am still a free and independent individual, although hindered in my perceptions. My previous experience may have culminated in this being I have become, but I am ultimately in charge of my behavior. Looking at my past to understand why I respond the way I do, does not excuse me from taking responsibility for my responses. Even though my immediate emotional reaction may be uncontrollable, what I do with that response is completely in my control, with or without chemical influence.
This is where the trouble comes in. Without a doubt, there are some medications that affect the way our brain works, and therefore our ability to make decisions. Some of these chemicals are intended to do so because the consumer doesn't trust their own chemicals. If I consume a chemical, then I am responsible for the decisions I make on that chemical. It doesn't matter if a "professional" recommended the chemical or not. It is my responsibility to accept that recommendation or not, then it becomes my responsibility to face any consequences of the decisions I make while under the influence of that medication.
Too often I see people use "emotional disorders" as an excuse for their behavior or the behavior of someone else. The medications, the social stigma, even the perceptions of the individual in question can be blamed for the unhappy state of the world. Everyone has emotional responses, and, not being perfect, some of those responses are inappropriate. According to our current culture, we should just label everyone as "crazy" and excuse hatred and extremism as a manifestation of the disorder that is this world. Then again we could accept that everyone has their own issues to deal with, not always well; take responsibility for ourselves in this moment, and move forward to make the next moment better. Maybe, just maybe, we can turn an epidemic of disorders into a minor disruption in an otherwise amazing and exciting life.