Our Guest Blogger Writes About Personality Disorder

It's guest blogger day!

Today Kerry's entry touches on a subject that we have recently become interested in learning about, due to some association with people diagnosed with the topic at hand.

We've done one blog post so far, discussing Personality Disorders (Personality vs Dissociative Disorders http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2012/01/personalty-vs-dissociative-disorders.html), illustrating the difference between the disorders as best as we could.

You might also want to read Treating and Healing Dissociative Identity Disorder http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2012/01/treating-and-healing-dissociative.html

We're happy to get Kerry's view on the topic. While we may not agree, or be sold, on the positive side of PD, we completely respect her professional and personal view on it; maybe we're jaded from what we know to be a limited (mainly borderline), and negative, experience with people who have these disorders. It's not really our place to have a negative opinion of anybody with a mental illness, if they are working towards getting the help they need. So we're just going to shut our mouth...for now.

We'd like to talk about the range of personality disorders at some point, which have three main classifications:

• Suspicious	• Emotional and impulsive	• Anxious
paranoid	borderline	avoidant
schizoid	histrionic	dependent
schizotypal	narcissistic	obsessive compulsive
antisocial

...but today is not the day.

We'd love to have you weigh in on your thoughts and opinions in the comments section following this entry. Just for fun.

And now, guest blogger, writer, mental health nurse, and groovy lady (yep, we said groovy, bite us)...Kerry Stott.

Personality Disorder, what is it and why do I like it?

I work with people who have a diagnosis of Personality Disorder (PD). These people tend to be chaotic in their presentation and resource intensive. By this I mean multiple presentations at A and E (ER for my American friends), possibly police involvement, numerous unplanned admissions to hospital and, generally a stressed out and frazzled mental health worker who co-ordinates their care. These patients can very easily burn out professionals and quite a few on my caseload have had several care co-ordinators prior to coming to me. They are often referred to as heart sink patients, because the mere mention of their name causes professionals to groan. Or at least that is the polite sanitised version.

So 2 questions, what is a personality disorder and why do I like working with people that can burn me out and cause so much stress? Throughout this blog I will repeatedly refer to people who have a diagnosis of PD. This means that they are very much struggling with life and being able to function, and not just a reference to people who are flaky and a pain in the bum. Also, it has a biased towards Borderline/Emotionally Unstable PD as this is the most common group that I work with.

For years I have been trying to find a definitive, snappy answer as to why I enjoy working with PD. Some of my colleagues say that’s because I have one myself, but then so does everyone to a certain degree. I like a challenge and these patients are certainly challenging. However, just because someone likes a challenge, doesn’t mean that they are any good at their job. There may be issues to do with my up bringing that cause me to relate well to people with a diagnosis of PD. Being British I might value the under dog and want to help them. Possibly I may want to ‘rescue’ people. I actually don’t like rescuing patients, I like assisting people to find their own feet and give them the tools to help themselves. Often this means not getting nervous or over anxious/excited if someone says that they want to kill themselves or have taken an overdose. Most of the time it is about being calm and consistent in my demeanour and behaviour towards them, as well as listening and being respectful.

From an emotional perspective I feel that I can connect to people with this diagnosis and it gives me great satisfaction and pleasure seeing them psychologically grow, and being part of that growth process. Watching them become more accepting of themselves and develop a greater independence from their more chaotic behaviour. Working with people who have PD is not about freeing them from it, rather finding some common ground where they can feel more in control of their behaviours and emotions. It’s not all about drugs and medicating people, although medication can play a role. It has a lot to do with interaction with the therapist/care co-ordinator/mental health nurse and the patient, role modelling, therapy, working with each other rather than the professional knowing best. Ultimately it is this team work that I love, the interaction and being able to hear other people’s stories about their lives and to help them see that they have the power and strength to change the ending. It need not be inevitable.

So what is PD? For clarification Frankie does not have PD, she has a dissociative condition, please read ‘D in DID’ for more info.

Personality is what makes us who we are, it make us individuals, separate from each other, psychologically identifiable from each other. I often describe personality as being like facets of a diamond, we all have different sides to our personality: funny, flirty, sarcastic, cruel, mournful and so on. We act and react to each other, usually within the cultural and social norms of our society. We bounce off each other. For example if I wanted to go and have a laugh because I felt funny I would choose a friend who could meet that need. If I wanted to have some sympathy I would go to someone I know who will be likely to give me the response I wanted. It works the other way around too. People frequently come to me because I get things done, or if you want to hear it straight rather than pussy footing around a topic – I’m your woman. However, we work within social conventions too. If I lived in the Middle East I would not be able to do the type of work that I do, wear the clothes I do (jeans and a jumper [sweater] at the moment before you ask), I would not be able to be as outspoken as I am. I live in the UK and I am (at times) actively encouraged to be outspoken, there are forums that promote this such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as my friends and work colleagues.

The key factor is how feelings can dictate our behaviour and they frequently do. As human beings we do things to bring about desired feelings to stop undesirable feelings. I love going on scary rides at the fair ground because I like the feelings that it induces. When I am feeling sad I will often eat crap or drink alcohol. The eating is in connection to trying to replicate the nice feeling that I associate with that food, biscuits (dark chocolate digestives [cookies]) were a treat when I was little and thus when I eat them I still feel like I am treating myself. The drinking alcohol is about dampening down and dulling the emotional pain. As you can see, form these examples how our feelings can force us to behave in a certain way. It is interesting that the two examples of self comforting stemming from different psychological places, as the lay person might think that they were done for the same reason. One way is to dampen down and avoid the uncomfortable feeling, the other to elicit happy memories from my early life. Neither of which work in the long run for clarification, there are most definitely short term coping strategies, but they get me through the moment.

It is these interactions between emotions and behaviours, and social interactions and cultural norms, which help define and mould our personalities. A psychologist once joked that there are no personality disorders on a dessert island. This is true but the one with obsessive compulsive PD will be out there lining up the coconuts and leaves. Livesley (2003) stated that the function of personality is to solve problems or life tasks fundamental to effective adjustment, to develop an adaptive sense of self and to be able to have a capacity to function in close relationships. Thus a personality disorder is the failure to solve basic life tasks. A failure to establish an adaptive self system; unable to develop a capacity to function adaptably in interpersonal and societal relationships. This is about as snappy a definition for PD gets!

In non psychologist speak this means that a person with PD is unable to have the complete range of ‘self’. I work predominantly with Borderline PD aka Emotionally Unstable PD (depending on which diagnostic criteria you use, USA or World Health Organisation) and frequently find people with this type PD are malleable and will be markedly different with different people. Not dissimilar to when I was a girl dating boys and would say, ‘Well he’s lovely when he’s on his own, but horrible when he is with his mates’ but a more extreme and pervasive version. People with a diagnosis of PD will often polarise people, with half loving them or wanting to protect and rescue them and the other half loathing them. Please note that this is not a conscious thing, rather a subconscious strategy that has been successful in keeping them safe through what is an often turbulent childhood. In addition to this what patient’s frequently report is an inability to feel emotionally stable. These emotions are overwhelming, uncontrollable and uncomfortable. I see them dating and falling in love, and falling hard; or feeling sad and suicidal with little in between these two extremes. The vast majority of my time, initially when working with Borderline patients, is being able to weather the storm of this tsunami of emotion. It is this that can cause professionals to become burnt out or cynical. I would place myself in the sceptical category not cynical just yet.

Knowing who you are is essential, how you will react to people and situations. This is the interpersonal and societal relationships that Livesley (2003) talks about. Not being able to maintain personal relationships, and not being able to work out why, is a lonely place to be. It is, therefore, unsurprising that people with a diagnosis of PD tries to get away from it, by any means possible. Thus there is a higher prevalence of drug and alcohol issues as well as self harm and suicidal behaviour.

Being able to work out why people behave and react enables me, and other professionals to offer help and guidance and the appropriate therapy. It really is like trying to work out a jigsaw puzzle. Sometimes (if I am very lucky) I am able to see most of the pieces of the puzzle. However, sometimes I don’t have all the pieces, some may be missing. Occasionally it feels like I only have a few pieces of the puzzle, that they are upside down with no picture to work out where they came from, and that I am in a room with the light off – tough work! Spending time at this point, working out why people do what they do not only enhances the therapeutic relationship because, quite often, these type of patients have not been given the chance to tell the story of their life to a health care professional.

Without a robust therapeutic relationship, nothing will happen and the patients will not get better. Indeed it may make things worse for both the patient and the professional, with increased likelihood of suicide and burnout. It is at this point in the relationship that I will discuss boundaries and rules in which we can work together as a team. What they want from me, what I want from them, what to do if things start to go wrong, who to call and appropriate systems.

‘Appropriate systems’ may seem an odd choice of phrase but it enables patients to have a clear understanding of how to access help and the appropriate way to go about it. For example anyone who is distressed will seek help but if they do not feel that they are being listened to, like a rather snotty receptionist at the doctors, they will try more urgently. It is this behaviour pattern that can cause an unwanted reaction in professionals from the patients’ perspective. This is what I hear a lot of ‘It’s just behaviour’ when I am working with PD. However, that’s the thing, it may be ‘just behaviour’ but it is behaviour at not having their needs met, at not being listened to, at not being able to control their emotional state, at not being able to conform to social norms.

I help people, it’s what I do. Helping people who consistently get themselves in an emotional mess and don’t know how to get out of it is just as valid as helping with any ‘illness’. In a nut shell, that is why I do it and it is why I love working with this client group. I hope that this post (if you ever got to the end of it) gives you some insight into why I do what I do….it has taken 6 months to be able to decant and condense what is a very complex and difficult topic, so thank you for reading.

Kerry x

Livsey, J. (2003). Practical Management of Personality Disorder. New York, Guilford Press.

More guest entries written by Kerry Stott @kerrystott

• · Our New Guest Blogger
• · Our Guest Blogger Writes About Depression
• · Our Guest Blogger Writes About Suicide
• · Our Guest Blogger Writes About Endopsychic Energy
• · Our Guest Blogger Writes About S.A.D.
• · Our Guest Blogger Writes About Anxiety
• · Our Guest Blogger Writes About Fear (National Breast Cancer Awareness Month)
• · Our Guest Blogger Writes About Insomnia
• · Our Guest Blogger Writes About Personal Problem Solving

and visit her websites at http://www.kerrystott.co.uk/

Blame Everybody. Blame Nobody. Blame Yourself.

You have to “blame” something, right? Or someone?

Yes. and No.

We wanted to take this moment to discuss a pet peeve…because we can, because this is our blog, and that's all the reason we need.

If you follow enough people on Twitter you get a real cross-section of people, and their varying views about personal responsibility. What we want to talk about it something we've seen being said for months now, in different ways, which all boil down to the same concept.

One view we’ve seen, on more than one occasion, are opinions like in a tweet we read today that reference people’s bad actions, stating they can always claim they are a result of their environment, and then they referenced Twitter as being a hotbed for such behaviour (when in fact, it’s people everywhere, all the time, always).

Now, we are a fan of the person who wrote the tweet (and we are obviously not going to name names), and we’re sure she was doing what The Boyfriend refers to as “taking the piss out of someone” or in this case, someones; which means, making a joke, obviously; we hope she was anyway.

We have also seen some tweets (on several occasions) saying demeaning things about people, their actions, and making reference to a history of child of abuse not being a valid reason for behavior…which really appalled us, if only because in the snarky bitchy way they worded it. Not because we ARE a victim of such a thing as child abuse (though we are) but the audacity of the people writing such things which are clearly ignorant and insensitive.

This way of thinking is not in which we prescribe, the opinion that bad behavior can simply be blamed on (or not blamed on) environmental and sociological factors, because while the formation of a person, their behaviours and beliefs, starts young in life (and continue all through life) and people are absolutely influenced by life factors…people can overcome it, if they choose to shift their paradigm of thinking, and responding, yet some choose to be a victim of it, using it as a crutch in life for their poor behavior and problems in life.

"My life is this way, or I think this way because of A, B and C...and that's just the way I am." (usually stated by a miserable person, who makes other people miserable, because of A, B and C)

People need only study/read (basic) developmental psychology and sociology texts, or you know, think about things logically, to understand…being a product of ones environment, a product of their upbringing, a product of their experiences with the world is how people develop as a human being.

Now, this isn't meant to sound preachy, we just get tired of willful ignorance, and want to share this way of thinking...so we don't find people, and stab them instead. See writing saves lives. *wink*

Seriously though, this understanding is how we have survived and been able to manage people, their actions, their emotions and attitudes; and how we, over time, have worked to accept people, cull patience; and also understand when we can't continue to be in the presence of people who do not understand and accept that people just do not spontaneously and blindly become who they are; which is the point we are trying to make.

There is scientific data and research in psychological sociology up the ying-yang to support the concept of human development - you can find some of it by using Google, and books, but please…Wikipedia is not a solid source of information all on its own…while it DOES reference good sources of information, it’s not even an adequate Cliff’s Notes (do they still make those? Are we old now?).

Back at it then.

One thing to always keep in mind, is that while you are a product of your environment and experiences, its how you choose to respond to it that is your choice, that's the part you have control over.

Here’s an example, and this is a basic one to understand, mostly because lots of people (most) have relationship where things like this happen:

One person in a relationship gets angry at their significant other about something likely insignificant and so they yell at them, or does something to make them realize they have done something wrong, and even though the significant other understands their partner “may be overreacting”, the significant other apologizes for whatever they did. What happens from there may vary, of course...grudges may be help on either side, deterioration of the relationship...whatever, it could go in endless directions.

If the person who is angry would take a moment to think about whether or not their anger is founded in something concrete or important, before they yell and get upset, they may find that perhaps their significant other is entitled to an apology too. It’s not THEIR fault that the other person got angry...simply stated...

It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.~ Epictetus

That’s just one example, obviously sometimes people deserve an angry outburst, but they also deserve to have a partner, friend, co-worker, stranger etc, who acts towards them accordingly, because, don't you? People shouldn't let the negative aspects of their upbringing and experiences destroy them as a person, or let them destroy another person, because it's never-ending madness.

Of course WE don't always prescribe to this (the part where we analyze ourselves before we react...the blame we usually accept), it's not always easy, but we try. This past weekend was a failure in which we had an outburst of words in a Facebook message to The Father...we said some mean things to him, and they should have been directed at someone else (or nobody else), but we said them out of pain and humiliation...we know that...and we felt bad the next day. We have yet to apologize, but...we're just trying to be honest. It's not easy. (and we will apologize...)

We've just gotten tired of people thinking outside influences shouldn't be a reason for behavior and actions, and experiences with others like friends, parents, relatives, strangers, for the way they act, they are a valid reason for people's actions, and they are environment (experience, upbringing and human interaction/relations) which are what develop a person’s perception, beliefs, evaluation ability and actions; however, that doesn't mean that the person cannot control, change or overcome the characteristics they develop from those experiences. All it takes is the will and desire to take personal responsibility.

Your attitude, as a human being, is expected to develop and continue to grow over time based on continued experience.

Need someone to blame? You, like us, should probably look in a mirror first.

------------------------------------------------------------------

We'd love to hear opinion on this, because after all, it's based on ours only, which has been influenced by our current experiences to date (which are those with people, texts, University classes, and shared communication). We love debate, and we don't get a lot of it.

Anyway, thanks for reading...sorry if you didn't find it interesting enough, there is a whole crap load of other stuff to read here, about sex and food, and all that...just take a look around.

Is anyone else exhausted?

~Frank et al

Organization = Mental Health?

The Organized Nature of Frank.

(not May)

A two-for-one day!

It's curious, I've always been a very organized person; when I travel I create a tabbed folder of maps, print outs, lists of attractions, emergency information and other goodies gleaned from hours of pouring over travel sites, books, magazines and my imagination. In many ways a lot of what I enjoy is the planning of a vacation – though the implementation of my plan is always exhilarating. Like a piece of art I save and file my travel folders; in my everyday life I have lists and lists laying around; I like to have structure (inside chaos) to my day; I like to plan and organize (even if I am not always so good at it); I like things to have places and for those things to be in them (even if it's in several baskets scattered around my apartment); I generally don't like to be left waiting (there are exceptions to that, but very specific exceptions); I have been known, until recently, for being the type of person who won't attend an event unless I have at least a week lead time; I have also cancelled plans with people if they did not confirm within 24 hours of the time we are supposed to meet, and when life prevents me from keeping my house organized (and clean) then with the clutter comes a fog in my brain, an inability to focus and chaos that's not welcome.

Since most of my life of planning hasn't turned out how I planned (not exactly, and not at all), and my recent experiments with dating and generally attempting “life off the cuff” (see: http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2010/10/so-this-evening-quite-ended-up-having.html AND http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.html AND http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2010/10/halloween-as-scary-as-it-gets-for-me.html AND http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2010/10/laughing-at-insanity-but-whose.html for illustration on things I don't normally do, but did anyway, just for the sake of experimentation) haven't produced results I desire – I am pretty sure disorganization in so many corners of my life (every corner) is what sent me over the edge of reason. (yeah, yeah, mix in the details and it's not exactly a revelation) – again. I am back to trying to organize and prioritize my life, and the people and things in it.

By the way, I am still working on some music posts – but my internet connection is doing it's 'molasses in January' bit after a brief fix just a couple days ago, and so the going is slow for providing adequate linkage and information.

Sabotage!

When the very recent past briefly reappears as a glimmer on the horizon (for christakes it's still in the re-view mirror) Frank faces it with bravery...but it's not likely to hold long. Weakness. [He's a] Stupid ass. I melt like butter under the spell of his kisses and it puts me into a daze.

(not butter, I know...it's better than butter...and I couldn't say "I melt like bacon"...the visual just isn't as accurate...close, but not quite)

Everything's just so strange lately. I can't help but think that I am the victim of purposeful relationship sabotage, that for some cruel reason as I try to work past my feelings for FNA, and fix the broken parts of my relationship with Standby after the recent blow to it's structural integrity, he just pulls me back in after rejecting me all too recently, knowing that I am trying to fix things. And boy, does part of me want to play. It's too bad I care too much for Standby - also back in the picture right fast but likely not for long though, tonight is another one of those talking nights for us...oh fun, oh fun. Granted there are times (many) when open communication is important, but at this point it feels like I am beating a dead horse (<- writing that made me laugh out loud).

To even be blogging about him (FNA) is pissing me off right now. I had vowed I wouldn't blog about him, vowed to myself. I actually vowed it about both of them (Standby and FNA), but I never thought it would come down to those two, the only two I really feel like having around...and one is making me choose. (and when I do choose they are likely to disappear from my blogging, sorry readers) And part of me feels strongly that by choosing the one I want, I'll get rejected by him again, immediately or he'll drag it out just long enough and do it again, just because he thinks it's a game.

And really, who is sabotaging who? Am I imagining it, is he doing it on purpose? or am I sabotaging myself? With my mental health on the line for this one, Frank has more thinking to do - even though I know what I want. 

Setting the tone.

Why Men Suck: Suck Story 1

I figure in time there will be enough stories I encounter that will somehow fall under the heading 'Why Men Suck'. So with that quick intro I give you....

Why Men Suck: Suck Story 1

Tonight I had my final ruling on "Law Student" and the ruling is: 'You do suck'.

Some of you, okay probably 1 of you, if I'm lucky 2...may remember a brief mention of "The Law Student" in my 'On The Subject of Dating and Blogging" entry at the beginning of October.

We've been chatting a couple times a week for a few weeks now, having met on a popular local dating site but for reasons haven't made it past the chat. He seemed pretty nice at first, smart, a law student wanting to get into human rights law, fairly interesting.  We eventually made a date to meet at a local cafe and bakery that serves up healthy portions of made-from-scratch food.  Long story short, well, it's not even a short story.  He canceled the date about an hour before, citing homework as the perpetrator. I figured "whatever", being very unsure of the whole thing in the first place and happy to jump back into my favourite pajamas and lay on the sofa.

Now he keeps attempting to chat with me, we exchange pleasantries, some friendly banter and then all of a sudden he launches into requests that I come over, offers of giving me a massage, and now, flat out telling me he wants me.  The more I turn him down the worse it gets. This leads me to ask...

On what alternate existence does breaking a date qualify a man to a level where he feels he may say these things to someone he has never met? To a person who repeatedly turns him down? Who flat out calls him out on his pushiness?

Do men like beating their head against walls?  Do they not understand that some woman may be offended that they aren't even worth taking out on a date before you make an advance.  Even if this is not the intention, I do know that this is how it made me feel. You'd think he would have realized this when I flat out told him last week that I was offended by what he was saying.  Maybe he has a bad short term memory from being kicked in the head for being a dumb ass too many times.

I am beginning to think he is also the type guy who would say he was going into human rights law as a pick up line. Maybe I am growing ever distrusting of men, the more I date. Maybe I over analyse. Maybe dumb behavior is a tip off to finding a jerk.

Boy may be a law student, but he's sure got some things to learn about laws of attraction. 

Just a reason men suck (sucky men, I know there are good ones, and even great ones... seriously, I know some of them)

Statement of self love

Congratulations, you may now kiss yourself | Reuters

(Reuters) - Chen Wei-yih has posed for a set of photos in a flowing white dress, enlisted a wedding planner and rented a banquet hall for a marriage celebration with 30 friends. 

But there is no groom. Chen will marry herself.

Uninspired by the men she's met but facing social pressure to get married, the 30-year-old Taipei office worker will hold the reception next month in honor of just one person.

"Age thirty is a prime period for me. My work and experience are in good shape, but I haven't found a partner, so what can I do?" Chen said.

"It's not that I'm anti-marriage. I just hope that I can express a different idea within the bounds of a tradition."

[...]

"I was just hoping that more people would love themselves," said Chen, who will go on a solo honeymoon to Australia.

Chen said her mother had insisted on a groom at first but later jumped aboard the solo marriage plan.

But as Chen cannot officially register a marriage to herself, if she finds a man later she will wed again.

"If I had a steady boyfriend, I wouldn't do this," Chen said. "it would be offensive to him, anyway."

(Reporting by Ralph Jennings; editing by Elaine Lies)

Now, I know that some people might think this woman silly. This may seem frivilous and silly but she is actually making a statement, and a fantastic one at that.


A statement FOR loving yourself independently of someone loving you.
And why shouldn't we love ourselves and why shouldn't we express it (in a non creepy, non "going to get you arrested for public indecency" kind of way)


Loving yourself is the best kind of commitment. Out of every person in the world you are the only one you can trust 100% of the time; okay, sometimes you can't even trust yourself (but maybe that's just me).  You are also the most capable of loving yourself 100% of the time (sometimes hard to do even for yourself)


You are the only one who can fully commit to yourself, you know you're not going anywhere so if you don't like yourself enough to love yourself, then who will?


The only statement she made that chaps my hide is: "If I had a steady boyfriend, I wouldn't do this," Chen said. "it would be offensive to him, anyway."  If you don't know why my bum is chaffing from this statement then it's just because you don't know me well enough yet:-*


If you are interested in what I think about marriage then just read my entry from this summer

'Re-thinking Marriage? ...(so much ramble)'

LOVE YOURSELF!  And I don't just mean in the hey-na-ne-na-ne way...


Here are some great unique cake toppers I found while searching for single bride toppers (which oddly, couldn't find); these first four being my favourite of course;)

Miscommunication and Freedom: The Connection

At the root of all communication lies the individual. It is through each individual that communication styles emerge, and it is through understanding oneself that each person can improve their communication styles. Through psychological freedom, or the freedom contained within oneself and free-will, we can begin to know ourselves. Freedom enables us to express ourselves, and in communication with others freedom to express ourselves is imperative. For what is communication if not the expression of our ideas and thoughts? Professor Mortimer J. Adler (2000), states that “psychological freedom is the fundamental freedom underlying both social and moral freedom” (p. 164). Freedom, whether people realize it or not, has profound effects on communication. Taking steps in understanding the various concepts of freedom in relation to the world around you can improve communication styles. Adler (2000) also stated that “the essence of freedom requires us to understand two terms: self and other” (p. 167), these two terms, according to Ronald C. Arnett, comprise Martin Buber’s concept of narrow ridge communication. According to Buber (1986), “narrow ridge is a communication style that genuinely takes into account both self and other” (p. 36), “which must become part of one’s decision-making process” (p. 35). Narrow ridge communication is essential in all relationships in society today.

In observing conflicts in the human community, we must consider that a portion of the problem, if not the entire problem, lies in miscommunication. Problems in communication can be associated with the lack of freedom a person feels morally, socially and psychologically, due to barriers imposed upon them, such as stereotyping and prejudice. By being prejudice or stereotypical, a person’s individual identity is ripped away from them. Generalizing people, in essence, conveys to a person that “this” is the only way they will be accepted, “this” is the only way they should feel; therefore the way we think they are is the only way they should be. Generalization demeans people and thereby denies them their social freedom.

When I visited my grandmother last year, she mentioned that there were a lot of families from a certain cultural background moving into the area. My grandmother began telling me about how “they” have drinking problems and are causing problems in the community. She lives in a very small town in which my uncle is a law officer. The information she receives about these people come from my uncle, whose primary exposure to anyone happens to be in negative circumstances related to the law. The more I thought about it, the more I had a problem with what she said. I began to imagine the difficulties in making friends and communicating with others for those who didn’t have drinking problems, but were being generalized in their community.

Many have said that freedom lies in knowledge. Categorizing people into preconceived generalities and stereotypes is a show of ignorance. “We must not believe the many, who say that only free people ought to be educated, but we should rather believe the philosophers who say that only the educated are free” (Epictetus -Wisdom Quotes). In Arnett’s summary of “Buber’s narration about educated people” Arnett (1986) states that [an] educated person [is one] one who knows the rules, regulations, and tradition, but can violate them when necessary” (p. 126). It is not unreasonable to believe that educated people are more free, but you can only attain freedom if you understand the world surrounding you. By having compassion for differences, we can respect each other for our individual differences and thereby give people social freedom.

Social freedom or freedom that is experienced in social roles and action between members of a society has an impact on the community. Social freedom can simply be described as freedom to be who you are as an individual in society. People who claim there is no freedom don’t realize that it exists only by granting freedom and equal rights to others. By being free, we understand that there are moral limitations to that freedom.

As Arnett (1986) states, “there is no set formula for a guarantee of an individual’s freedom within a community. Freedom is more complex than just being able to do whatever one wants in community” (p. 111). One person’s freedom should not, in return, restrict the freedom of another, or as Thomas Jefferson once said, “no man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another” (Wisdom Quotes).

In history, miscommunication has arisen in instances where a group’s freedom has been restricted or extinguished. These problems arise due to one group of people adopting an ethnocentric attitude that is to say that “they feel their group’s way is the best and only way” (Schwarzwalter, April 20,2004, Lecture). An example of this is the current debate concerning marriage and the gay community. Members of this community are asking that they have equal rights, legally, in marriage unions as does the straight community. In a country that is supposed to have a separation of church and state, it is wrong that the only true element keeping them from their freedom is based on the traditions of religious communities.

The religious right believes that heterosexual marriage should be the only construct of marriage recognized by the laws of the United States. Denying gays this right based on an ethnocentric view is in breech of the constitution, which grants equality to all and does not restrict those rights based on race, age, sex, or sexual orientation. In fact, if President George W. Bush get his way and the constitution is amended, this will mark the first time in the history of the constitution in which a freedom was restricted from a specific group of people.

Granting freedom should not be based on the ethnocentrism of one group of people. Ethnocentrism, according to Jessica Stowell, “leads to rejection of richness and knowledge of another group of people, which impedes communication by excluding other point of views” (Schwarzwalter, April 20, 2004, Lecture). Ethnocentrism breeds polarized communication. Polarized Communication, according to Arnett (1986), is “the inability to believe or seriously consider one’s own view as wrong and the others opinion as truth [and is] the major problem within our human community” (p. 15). By excluding people’s ideas, we are taking away their freedom. In order to overcome problems such as these, we must heed the advice of Jessica Stowell, who says that for communication barriers to be overcome, openness, tolerance and acceptance must be exercised.

It is those brave enough to step out and exercise their freedom, those not afraid of challenging and shifting the paradigms of a community, who will make the differences in our world. By definition, a paradigm is a set of rules and regulations dictating the process of how we do things, (Schwarzwalter, February 17, 2004, Lecture). This action must take place in order for there to be a balance of freedom and openness in communication styles. Arnett (1986) tells that Buber recognized the “need for courage on the part of the solitary person [because without it] a totalitarian collective, not a community, is nourished” (p. 83). Those who are not afraid of the shifting of paradigms are those courageous enough to adopt the narrow ridges of communication. According to Arnett (1986) “…we need to be open to events and people in order for new combinations of ideas and actions to emerge” (p. 121).

It all sounds easy, but Gladwell spoke of social pressures and their effects on decision making. Gladwell (2000) claims that

when people are asked to consider evidence or make decisions in a group, they come to very different conclusions than when they are asked the same questions by themselves. Once we’re part of a group we’re all susceptible to peer pressure and social norms and any other kinds of influences (p. 171).

Peer pressure becomes a problem in human relations because “many […] are prevented from acting by fear of the consequence” (Adler, 2000, p. 168). An equally dangerous outcome is marginalization, in which the voice of an individual “is limited by placing that person on the outskirts of the group […] [and] is excluded from the decision-making center of the group” (Arnett, 1986, p. 23). Fear of marginalization and other consequences, such as being ostracized, rejected and ridiculed, therefore extinguishes the freedom in communication.

In my own life, I can honestly say that peer pressure used to hold a lot of power, especially peer pressure related to wanting to “belong.” I thought I had never been exposed to what I had always thought peer pressure was. Those old commercials where a friend offers a joint, and then attempts to verbally persuade the other person to “join in,” are the most obvious forms of what people consider to be peer pressure. I think the feeling of wanting to belong to a group is stronger, and in most adolescence experiences, goes beyond words. Nobody offered me my first cigarette, I chose to smoke because, I thought a certain person would like me more. As an adult, I realize that we should surround ourselves with friends who accept us as we are, people who do not pressure us and with whom we can have the freedom to share our thoughts and feelings and in doing so, experience positive communication styles.

Some may claim that true freedom exists only in the confines of our minds because that is the only place you have complete control. I tend to agree with this statement. In my mind, I can think anything I want, I can do anything I want, the power of imagination is endless. It is only by releasing my thoughts, feelings and/or desires to others that freedom is at a risk. Until someone tells me I cannot do, say, write or feel one thing or another, I am completely free to experience those feelings at will It is by “playing a non-judgmental role with others in order to promote their self-actualization,” (Arnett, 1986, p.69) that freedom is granted and communication can become open. Self-actualization, roughly defined by Arnett (1986) is “full use and exploitation of talents, capabilities, potentialities, etc.” (p. 69). In order to promote self-actualization, one must posses it themselves, because it is the self-actualized person that is free.

One might argue that if you do have an outlet from which to safely share your feelings beyond yourself, then there really is no freedom. Unless the right to be you is granted, it is indeed lack of freedom. It is through an understanding of psychological freedom, the freedom within one’s self, that self actualization is given birth and in turn, by embracing your own self-actualization you can be free to “grant” others the same right. You cannot give something you do not have.

“Freedom is […] the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them --- and then, the opportunity to choose” (C. Wright Mills - Wisdom Quotes). Choosing an opportunity or an attitude is an exercise in the fundamental of freedom that every person is entitled to. The philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre says that if you let circumstances dictate your action, then you are suppressing your freedom. When one suppresses their freedom, they choose not to take responsibility for their action, which has a profound effect on the environment surrounding a person. If we refused to take responsibility, we would be liable to do anything. When we take responsibility, “freedom then becomes an act of the person changing events, while simultaneously being willing to be changed by them” (Arnett, 1986, p. 122). Decision making, the fact that we can choose ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is proof of free will. Arnett (1986) says that “[free] will[…]is the transaction of the call of the situation and our response to it” (p. 122) “and the call is nothing if not responded to by the individual” (p. 121). It is in that simple response that freedom arises. One can see the desire to refuse freedom because if you feel you have responded to the wrong choice, you are less likely to take responsibility, but when the decision turns out to be favorable, we are more inclined to believe we were responsible. It is a very basic principle of psychology called locus of control wherein a person believes his or her fate is dependent on either internal or external forces. The healthier version of this is the external locus of control in which we are willing to take responsibility for our actions.

Rollo May (1986) says that “will is the capacity to organize one’s self so that movement in a certain direction or towards a certain goal may take place” (p. 119). “Will,” according to Arnett (1986), is a “constructive rule that govern[s] […] behavior” (p. 121). You must consciously chose to exercise your free-will while mutually considering the effects of your actions on those around you in order to accomplish that which you desire. We must heed caution because feeling a lack of freedom will lead to compulsiveness decision making, having negative consequences on the individual and the environment surrounding them.

Sartre (1966) believes “human reality perpetually tries to refuse to recognize its freedom” (p. 37), and Buber (1986) says that “life lived in freedom is personal responsibility or pathetic farce…as we ‘become free’ this leaning on something is more and more denied us, and our responsibility must become personal and solitary” (p. 115). In analyzing these two statements, I have come to believe that people who refuse to recognize the existence of freedom simply do not want to own up to their responsibilities. Sartre (1966) said that men are “responsible for [their] very desire of fleeing responsibility” (p. 97). Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand and therein lies the problem. By giving into the notion that there is no such thing as freedom or free will “we admit that circumstances decide for [us]” and in doing so “suppress all freedom” (Sartre, 1966, p. 41).

By understanding that “the absence of freedom consists in being subject to the power of the other” (Adler, 2000, p. 167), the other being a coercer, an authority figure, say a parent, a wife or a law officer, we can begin to understand processes in maintaining our freedom. Tannen comments:

being on the lookout for threats to independence makes sense in the framework of an agnostic world, where life is a series of contests and that test a mans skill and force him to struggle against others who are trying to bend his will to theirs. If a man experiences life as a fight for freedom, he is naturally inclined to resist attempts to control him and determine his behavior (Tannen, 1990, p. 152)

There can be no doubt that resisting authority can have negative consequences, such as arrest and fines.

Arnett (1986) claims that “even in civil disobedience and protest, one does not have total freedom. In exercising freedom against the tradition, we are limited even within a dissenting group” (p. 114). I do not agree with this statement, I believe that in understanding ourselves we can fight tradition if we are compelled to. It is our inherent right because “everything can be taken from a man but […] the last of the human freedoms - to choose one’s attitude on any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s way” (Victor Frankl - Wisdom Quotes). “Personal responsibility is a response grounded in training and tradition that bends, alters, or changes the acceptable laws that govern the general situation in order to meet the specific requirements of the moment” (Arnett, 1986, p. 89), and this is the attitude each individual should approach when faced with a circumstance in which they must make a decision.

We may conclude that the danger to losing our freedom lies in the hands of the authority but we may be wrong, we just need the appropriate authority. According to Mortimer Adler (2000), “we need authority, an authority we willingly submit to rather than a force we are compelled to accept, if we are going to remain free” (p. 39). Without authority, there would be social chaos, we must know when to submit to authority and when to take our freedom, or as stated earlier by Buber (1986), we must “know the rules, regulations, and tradition, […and…] violate them when necessary” (p. 126).

According to James Baldwin “freedom is not something that anybody can be given. Freedom is something people take, and people are as free as they want to be” (Wisdom Quotes). Sartre’s philosophy coincides with that of Baldwin, Sartre claimed that if you say you are free, then you are free and if you claim not to be free, then you are not free. The decision is yours and within the constructs of the narrow ridge community you are free.

The danger in relation to authority, or leaders and freedom, is extrapolation about ‘group - think,’ in which a group adopts a mind-set or a particular view…not only might the leaders manifest autocratic dispositions towards new ideas, but if enough members of a community assume such a stance it can become the style of a community” (Arnett, 2000, p. 102).

To combat group-think philosophies we need to practice shifting of paradigms and understand that “dissent is essential if we are to keep a democratic institution strong […] every organization needs a questioner who does not permit the organization to run too smoothly” (Arnett, 1986, p. 100).

When evaluating communication patterns and freedom in intimate relationships, Deborah Tannen’s philosophy on understanding the differences between the sexes can lead to better communication. Tannen (1990) claims that “desire for freedom and independence becomes more of an issue for many men in relationships” (p. 40), and this can be confirmed by men’s consistent statements regarding feelings of being “smothered” or “confined” in relationships. In fact, men whose freedom feels more restricted are increasingly likely to have affairs. This can be confirmed by the mere fact that miscommunication in relationships is causing increased divorce and infidelity rates throughout our communities. When “men focus on their freedom from others’ control” (Tannen, 1990, p. 42), which is a natural reaction, the woman in their life becomes the control that they focus on fleeing from.

My significant other and I had fought for months with each other, and we could not figure out what lay at the root of our problems. After much exploration, we realized that there were things that we were keeping from each other. These things were nothing big, just general feelings that we felt we could not share. The turning point came when one of us opened up and shared our feelings. Our relationship began to take on a whole new form. Now there is nothing we cannot share because we know we have the freedom to be open with each other.

This is not to say that freedom of openness will not occasionally come with some repercussions, but open communication should be worth the risk and not come with a fear of consequences for being honest. Without mutual freedom to be open with each other, relationships cannot be happy or healthy. In a relationship, “…seeing a pattern against which to evaluate individual differences provides a starting point to develop not only self-understanding but also flexibility” (Tannen, 1990, p. 294). A relationship that does not meet these requirements is dangerous not only to the people involved, but also to society. Lack of freedom at home leaks into communication styles with others in the human community because one comes to the public already feeling they are not free.

The best road to take lies in the basis of friendship; in friendships there is rarely anything that you feel you have to hide from the other person. Acceptance, tolerance and understanding, all foundations of love, are the most important things in overcoming miscommunication in relationships with everyone.

Arnett (1986) says that “if one comes [to the communication table] with a closed mind, no new possibilities or freedom will be discovered - for freedom involves the discovery of new possibilities whether they be practical or attitudinal” (p. 123). Equally important to understand is that “freedom is contingent on our attitudinal approach to the world” (116). Just like it is the small things in life that really make life worth it, “[a] person [must] realize that freedom can be discovered in everyday activit[ies]” (p. 116), and through this realization we can be truly free and open in communication. Gladwell (2000) has the best idea in bringing about change, he says:

If you want to bring about a fundamental change in peoples beliefs and behaviors, a change in that would persist and serve as an example to others, you need to create a community around them, where those new beliefs could be practiced and expressed and nurtured (pg. 173).

Freedom binds us together as a community and begins “in the heart of relationship, […] which connects us and is the essence of human life” (Arnett, 1986, p. 123 - 125). Peyton Conway March said that there are “three things we crave most in life -- happiness, freedom and peace of mind -- [and they] are always attainable by giving them to someone else” (Wisdom Quotes). People have philosophized for hundreds and thousands of years about what it means to be free. We may never understand it to its full extent; all we can hope to do it understand it as best as possible and be open to others in all aspects of communication.

The major questions I am left with lie in the loopholes of freedom that revolve around the varying individual perceptions of what freedom is. Why does freedom have such an obvious impact on communication? How do we actually overcome these preconceived ideas and shift our paradigms? How do we get other people to realize their freedom? It proves to be a different method for each person, there is no easy way to teach a person what freedom means or how to improve communication without them being open to the idea. What does freedom really mean and represent?

---- Works Cited ----

Adler, M (2000). How to Think About : The Great Ideas From the Great Books of Western Civilization. Chicago and LaSalle: Open Court Publishing Company.

Arnett, R. (1986). Communication and Community: Implications of Martin Buber’s Dialogue. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

Gladwell, M (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Make A Big Difference. Boston, New York, London: Little, Brown and Company. National Constitution Center. The Constitution of the United States. Philadelphia, PA.

Sartre, J (1966). Of Human Freedom. New York: Philosophical Library Inc.

Schwarzwalter, L. Speech Instructor. (Class Lecture, 2004, February 17; 2004, April 20)

Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men In Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.

Wisdom Quotes. Retrieved April 13, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat-freddom.html.