The other day in my favourite café, I was listening to a friend who’s been dealing with mental illness all the decades of her adult life. Diagnosed long ago with so-called ‘schizophrenia’, she clearly needs to talk about her feelings, issues and events. How important it is to feel heard.
As I thought about how psychiatry changed under the domination of the pharmaceutical industry, and how all of society and government just rolled over and accepted that wave, I found myself getting angry all over again. Talking to a skilled professional about one’s distress, actually helps change that distress in the process. And some therapists can even help a client evolve, grow, mature, even develop wisdom and insight. It sure changed my life!
I am astonished at how lucky I was, and how many of my acquaintances had the opposite experience. A shocking number of them have had one kind of emotional distress or another over the decades without ever experiencing ‘talk therapy’.
How was I so lucky that whenever I went through an identity crisis – which happens to most people from time to time – I was able to access professional support? And I took it for granted at the time. Having read many humanistic psychology books, I guess I took it as a human right. Progressive psychiatrists, psychologists, encounter groups, ‘transactional analysis’ groups, psychological workshops, assertiveness groups, women’s groups — I could go on. Perhaps I was simply part of a brief enlightened era. But underlying all of that, essentially, was the experience of feeling heard and understood. What countless friends and acquaintances got instead: pills.
We all have the need to be heard – and maybe at some times more than others. Some people do a lot of talking, but somehow can’t release what they really need to say, so their need is never fulfilled.
And on the other hand, there are people who would love to be supportive listeners, and could be effective, but aren’t sure exactly how to get into it. These two groups remind me of dancers gazing at each other across the dance floor, listening to the music, but not sure what to do about it. And some have the best of intentions, the will, and the caring, but just can’t seem to ‘listen’ without getting into trouble.
What we’re talking about is not a regular conversation. We’re talking about special times with deep needs, that could be filled in a mutually beneficial way. We’re talking about pairing those who have the need to be heard, with people who can do the helpful, active, effective listening that’s needed. People who have time – for listening takes time. People who want to be supportive and helpful, who appreciate how meaningful this kind of listening can be.
What perfect ‘volunteer’ work, I think, for a retired baby boomer, for example, looking for a meaningful activity. If she’s always been a ‘good listener’, she might only need some tutoring on active listening skills.* Just a little tweaking.
‘What do you mean,’ I can hear some saying. ‘Anyone can listen, can’t they?’ Not so fast. Not everyone can listen ‘actively’ and ‘non-judgmentally’. Some feel compelled to react, to argue. And worse, some feel compelled to gossip about what they heard. In this role, we have to take it to the grave.
In an ideal world, our health care system would cover psychological help for just about any kind of distress. It’s in that field we find tools and strategies that can be fairly simply taught, for coping — or changing. After all, whether you are only homesick or in a mild depression, for example, or at the other extreme perhaps a long period of suicidal feelings or violent urges, most people on occasion could use some trained help with changing their feelings or their thinking – finding some inner peace.
A skilled professional can help us develop insight, help us grow as a person, much faster than the painful method of a lifelong experiment with trial-and-error, or accidental wisdom gained slowly through life into old age. But how many psychiatrists offer ‘talk-therapy’ these days? It’s fifteen minutes, and pills. How grateful I am that I had ‘therapy’ back in a time when it meant something.
But life’s just not like that. We need people operating at different levels of skill, somewhere between ordinary listening, and full blown professional help. A ‘volunteer listener’ might just fill the bill. And imagine a whole team of them, in a community, functioning like a self-help group, sharing their learning, helping each other become better listeners – and hey, maybe even becoming advocates.
There are many people in my life who have inside what I call “a wounded child”. Some of these wounds are pretty severe, to the point of interfering with their living a satisfying life. Yet feeling free to talk about it, and feeling heard, can bring some relief and peace and a clearer mind.
There are a few potential, pleasant, by-products I can imagine, from a sharing/listening activity like this. One is that some people who have tended to talk a lot about trivial impersonal things without observing how the listener was receiving it, would begin to be more appreciative. Even respectful and considerate, realizing that this person was actually sharing a valuable skill. And there’s a good chance that he or she would eventually have satisfied the need to be heard, losing the compulsion to speak
And the Listener, on the other hand, might feel the self-respect or self-esteem that comes of knowing she is giving something of value – something that can be life-changing for the other.
I began to think of this years ago when my husband started working at home. He had a big load and no colleagues to share it with. It took awhile to understand all he was talking about, but eventually my listening was a regular activity. At some point
I also heard about the Shoa project** One could say it formally acknowledges the importance of telling the story, for the person telling it, as well as for posterity.
Then I was recently listening to an acquaintance talk about his childhood, and could hear in his voice what I can only think of as a repressed sob, as if he were on the verge of doing that. It felt to me like an ocean wave of needing to get it all out, and I suggested doing it on video as I had done with others before.
Suddenly all these ideas seemed to crystallize into the one about active listening teams. If someone takes it and ‘runs with it’, that would be incredible. And no doubt I will continue to explore the idea with other interested people. I sure do see a role for caring volunteers – at least until the psychiatric field comes to its senses – or governments come to their senses and begin covering psychology!
** http://www.mindtools.com/CommSkll/ActiveListening.htm
*** http://www.angelfire.com/in/shamayim/
Yes, it is our job to feed our neighbour’s child
Once again, a typical Conservative statement of values (with apologies to Hugh Segal): Minister James Moore says “Well, obviously nobody wants kids to go to school hungry. Certainly we want to make sure that kids go to school full bellied, but is that always the government’s job to be there to serve people their breakfast? Empowering families with more power and resources so that they can feed their own children is, I think, a good thing. Is it my job to feed my neighbour’s child? I don’t think so.”*
Wrong, I say. The government is us. And it is our job to help nourish our neighbour’s kids. It’s all very well to talk about “empowering families” so they can feed their own children. Nice and vague. That’s a fairly typical right-wing perspective. It lets them off the hook. But how do you ‘empower’ alcoholic, or gambling-addicted or mentally ill parents, in a way that guarantees their child will be fed. And that child needs far more than feeding in any case.
If not feeding the child is one end of this perspective, building bigger prisons is the other end. I think of that as punishing an already wounded child who has become a still wounded adult. Increased funding for prisons, cutbacks on funding for vulnerable youth programs, housing, etc.
Practical reality suggests strongly that as a society, we’d save a fortune if we provided supportive housing at $25-31/day, instead of mere shelters, at $69 a bed. But reality is not what conservatism is about. These days it’s about critical-judgmental perspectives, selfishness.
People do not become homeless because they made ‘bad choices’. Or because they refused to memorize their timetables. Oh they’ve probably made some mistakes along the way, but who among us has not? To dismiss the lifelong impact of their childhood experience is ignorance of the worst sort.
“Bad choices” are the only choices you have left when “wiser” options have been precluded by your actual ‘life story’. You get to make ‘good choices’ when you’ve had a childhood of relative privilege: unconditional love, education, security, a good vocabulary, an ability to communicate, to charm people. And a soul that’s relatively peaceful.
No, people end up without permanent addresses – or in extreme poverty — because of ‘stuff’ that has happened to them. Stuff that makes for nightmares, not to mention an inability to concentrate – or perhaps even a chorus of voices and noises in the head that would drive most of us to distraction.
Take my homeless ‘senior’ friend D. By the time he was fourteen, he’d already been precluded from the possibility of inner peace. ‘Career development’ would have seemed a joke. With his drunken father alternating between his – or his little brother’s – bed at night, he couldn’t take his living nightmare any longer and left home. So at fourteen, he had to not only continue raising himself, but also figure out on his own how to deal with all the crap that life would throw at him.
Was that a ‘bad choice’? “Should-haves” are easy to say about someone else, when we can’t imagine what their daily life is like? Surely it doesn’t take that much imagination to guess at the agonizing life he had to live at times.
My father might not have been the greatest dad for me, but he certainly never crawled into any kid’s bed. He certainly never abused anyone, and he did set a conventional ‘good example’. He regularly said, “There but for the grace of god, go I.”
As a Christian, when he said, “Judge not that ye be not judged,” he meant it. He believed in compassion and charity, and lived it – more or less. He was what selfish conservatives call, generally with a snear and a voice dripping with sarcasm, a ‘liberal’. As if it meant giving away the family jewels. My friend D would have appreciated a father like that.
The point is that anyone growing up in a conventional family is not in a position to judge a homeless person. So why do I often hear the question, “Why should I pay for some else’s bad choices or mistakes?” Just ignorance. People aren’t homeless because of bad choices. They are homeless because of circumstances beyond their control.
Many are homeless because of mental illness, addictions and other ailments, and on average, homeless people die in their forties. I think it’s fair to say that many are homeless because of official government policies.
They are homeless because, for starters, there aren’t enough homes: For example, “Michael Shapcott* notes that in 1982, all levels of government funded 20,450 new social housing units. By 1995, the number dropped to approximately 1,000, with a modest increase to 4,393 by 2006 (Wellesley Institute, 2008)” (I recommend checking out www.homelesshub.ca.)
“Supportive housing programs can also reduce the costs associated with health care and the justice system. One study found that investing in supportive housing costs $13,000 to $18,000 per year; in comparison, traditional institutional responses like prisons and psychiatric hospitals cost $66,000 to $120,000 per year.”
We already know from experiments in a number of cities with “homes first” policies, that money is saved in shelter and emergency costs, with some shelters shutting down through lowered demand. But I believe it’s becoming obvious that general improvements and cost savings would be even more dramatic, if we went “all the way” as a society, and provided not only homes, but professional support as well as all basic needs. It just makes sense.
Of all the reasons that exist for poverty and homelessness, surely we could eliminate the most significant one: regressive policies, a byproduct of social attitudes that need changing. This will only happen if enough of us keep speaking up and pointing out what should be obvious.
Reading:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/12/20/the_harsh_spirit_of_ebenezer_scrooge_lives_on.html http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/12/09/conservatives_dismantling_social_programs_built_over_generations.html http://www.homelesshub.ca/ResourceFiles/SOHC2103.pdf http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/issues/housing?terminitial=23&routetoken=52da198940fbf4169727679a93c91fcdhttp://www.threesource.ca/documents/April2012/HousingFirstReport.pdf
*http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/12/16/tory_minister_james_moore_apologizes_for_child_hunger_comment.html ** Canadian activist and Director, Affordable Housing and Social Innovation, Wellesley Institute
Share this: