Monday, May 31, 2010

Tough questions

Way many years ago, I spent most of a year thinking about what happens when we ask questions about people's actions. It was, after all, my trade, and I noticed some things that I hadn't seen talked about much in the shrink lit.

Before the behavioral debacles of the 70s and 80s, fledgling shrink types were instructed in how to get clients to talk without asking many questions -- or, preferably, any questions. Somewhere around 1975, the pendulum swung, and now we are encouraged to do nothing but ask questions, fill out inventories, and so on. But I digress....

Inherent in our earlier dicta was the recognition that asking questions was a way of NOT learning much. The general principle was to leave as much space for a client to talk as possible; the client would then talk about whatever was most important -- to the client, not the therapist.

I found out that the philosophers and anthropologists had a more sophisticated idea. Much of language, and other behavior, is devoted to communicating norms. Beyond the purely descriptive parts of language -- "The giant mastadon is 30 feet to your right" -- most of what we do is bounce back and forth the ways to be a good member of the tribe. And, if folks are asking a lot of questions about your reasons for doing something, you are certainly not being a good member of the tribe. Good members just don't have questions asked about them. Take a look around and see; when we say to somebody "Sheesh. Why did he do THAT?", we aren't exactly expressing approval.

For example, we don't wonder if straight folks had a particular physical event or trauma or family pattern to account for their hetero-ness, but gay folks constantly endure these questions, and theories, and correctly, I think, see all the speculation as nothing but repeated statements that they are deviant. And if I am found having sex with a Fluffy the German Shepherd, questions would damn well be asked!! Suspects, are, after all, brought in for.....questioning. A hanging curve, that one.

I don't mean to say that question-asking is a primary mechanism for enforcing compliance, but it is one of many. Like music, like dancing, like overt reward and punishment, language both relies on the integrity of the tribe, and provides a mechanism for extending custom, knowledge and states of consciousness.

Talking about "mind" is just another language-trick to make us behave. I know, I know...repetitive from the last two posts. A generous Alert Reader gives me:

"It's all in his mind".

Wow!!! I'm right!!! Perfectly equivalent to "Good tribe members don't act that way". And with a delicious snarky quality!!

I come at all this as a person with a brain that has been dinged in a specific way (not badly, BTW) and I see some signs of that damage in my transactions with the world. I don't think I would say that I have a damaged mind, though. Were I to take up with Fluffy the German Shepherd, or start robbing banks or babbling endlessly about arcane topics, then I would say that something has happened to my mind and other folks would agree -- his mind isn't what it was, they might say. Or, he's out of his mind. They would not refer to my brain. Perhaps in reflection, at later thought, and so on, the connection to a damaged brain might be made. Technical types - the OTs, the neuro docs, the psychometricists would immediately skip the whole mind thing and go straight to brain, which is good by me. I want them thinking about the brain, where they can maybe be helpful.

Incidentally, I have never heard that anyone had a "damaged mind". I'm sure it has been said, but I haven't heard that specific phrase. Odd. Well, maybe not so odd; maybe we recognize more about how "mind" is used than we let on.

Like so many damaged others, I am determined to show that my damaged brain does not put me outside the tribe, and into the realm of "mind" talk. A lot of very interesting thought about the nature of "mind" is in autism and Asperger groups. Smart folks, VERY highly motivated to understand why all this talk of "mind" is just so damn nasty.

So, I really am OK, right??? Oh, oh. A question. Well, I guess I know where that leaves me.

8 comments:

  1. Would you consider a definition of "mind" to be "brain output", or "brain function"? That way, one could perhaps have a "damaged brain" which would in no way qualify the damaged brain's output as "good or bad, right or wrong"--it would just be brain output. For example, folks who have severly damaged their brains by stroke or broken neck accidents often rejoice if they get ANY recognizeable output--output is GOOD. Or folks with Learning challenges--their brains often posess vivid imaginations or other unusual outputs, like art or musical ability or numbers ability. I must say, my tendency is to look with more intensity at the "qualifier (judgement maker)" than at the owner of the damaged brain. Who gives those judges the power to decide who is outside the "tribe"? I think the person feeling judged is in reality the one who actually gives away that power. If one has a strong self acceptance or self knowledge, or self worth, why would one care "what other people think"? (For example, the "majority whose thought processes allowed them to elect George W. Bush TWICE--why would anyone care what they think????--but I digress) So, to answer your question "So, I really am OK, right???" I would say "to me, of course! I'm ok, you're ok", which is, to me, actually more a statement about me than about you! Funny these dichotomies--What do you think?!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the comment! I love this!!!

    Anyhow, I think I came at it all from a different angle, more from the question of what is going on when we talk about mind than from trying to make a definition of mind. I think there are a lot of words that aren't about "things" -- "Hello" to use a trivial example -- and they are still perfectly good words. Back to "the meaning is the use"; meaning is established by what happens when a word is uttered (oh, my; part of the blog name!). If I say "sit" to someone, and he sits, then the word "sit" is a command, not an object.

    The question with some words is a lot more difficult. I was trying to say, in an awfully clumsy way, that "mind" is more like "good" or "pretty" than it is like "brain". "Mind" is used to express the speaker's attitude about what is desirable behavior, while "brain" is a specific grey, flaccid object.

    Ultimately, we arrive pretty much at the same place, it looks like. I also think that when someone talks about "mind", ultimately it is about the speaker.

    I also agree that one may not care what other think, or say. But that really doesn't help us understand what is going on when speaking occurs. I spend enough energy on the blog to know that I do want people to care about what I say, to take seriously what I write -- and even argue with me about it!! But, after all, I don't want to be treated simply as a broken brain.

    There may be people who would not be troubled by that sort of dismissal; I just haven't met any.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Jack. First time caller.

    I think in this sort of discussion of the prevalent use of "mind" it's key to consider that in addition to this regulatory function that the concept of mind serves, it doubles in what is perhaps a more pervasive social role as (still) the seat of Western concepts of agency. "Mind" itself, as a concept, serves as the basis of accountability in our civilization, and with very little substantial basis except that it creates a phantasmic presence with which one can focus blame/accusation. When we talk about mind, we are relying on our dogmatic belief - a wink and a handshake agreement amongst us - that we have somehow pinpointed this essence and agency. When I refer to your brain I refer to a physical entity that is just "part of you". When I refer to your mind I am referring to something that I can conceptualize and compartmentalize as "you". Thus perhaps is its staying power.

    In terms of ordinary-language, I can't imagine a court room, classroom, home, or social space in which some variation of "You made up your mind to..." inevitably forms the foundation of accusation and/or condemnation. The "you" that did this was ultimately the you of your "mind" that chooses, discriminates, and executes - as opposed to that inert lumpy mass of flesh and bone. If it were to be rooted in the brain, well, who could blame someone for a physical brain-jerk reaction? "I had no control over it, it was just my brain". Somewhat like a muscle spasm.

    I feel as though this contrast is more sharply pronounced when we look at philosophies and civilizations that are NOT rooted around notions of the "personal" mind, such as ours is. Much of Eastern philosophy, most notably Daoist and Zen lineages of thought, reject this notion and therefore wholeheartedly reject the notion of mind-as-object. These are great places to start in terms of discussions of mind that break from many of the orthodox dualisms of most Western theories of mind, although these discussions tend to veer away from language and actually hold language as one of the key barriers to an adequate understanding of mind.

    ReplyDelete
  4. i've also been thinking about questions as reinforcing norms. i like it! Language at it's core is symbolic exchange, no? and that symbolic exchange is meant to keep a particular social order in tact, and to make the participants in that social order believe somewhat in their free will.
    but i also think that questioning is important, when it comes to things like power, right? i mean, is it reinforcing a norm when you question a racist or sexist comment? when you interrupt hurtful language? in the context of therapy/psychoanalysis, yes, i agree with you, it does reinforce the idea of behavior as deviant . but questioning changes things too, for the better? questioning does lead to action, in many instances.

    how does music and dancing re-enforce compliance? i think it both encourages conformity as well as provides an outlet (that is often co=opted) for breaking down social norms...

    i think it's interesting that you write about your "transactions" with the world. transactions, as opposed to interactions, or relationships with, or participation in, etc. i'm interested and want to know more about how you see those things manifested in daily life and what that sentence means.

    also, "damaged." you're right, damaged mind, no, but damaged emotionally? TOTALLY YES. it's definitely in the discourse. so how does "emotion" and the mind come into play? is the mind intellectual/rational *and* emotional?

    ReplyDelete
  5. It has always been my belief (and I've written songs with this concept), that the mind or more specifically brain, is the receiver of the spiritual transmission. I know personally people that have had the life after death experience of hovering over their body and seeing deceased loved ones and the white light, so this is my only evidence of a spirit.

    When I've interacted with people who were severely brain damaged after I had known them or the mentally retarded etc..., the "spirit" comes through in the form of presence or personality. It is just that the radio's circuitry has been altered and ones perception of the transmission is static-y.

    A damaged brain, as you so put it, comes in many forms from being groggy in the morning, drunk and angry in the afternoon, to not remembering anything of the day and being just too damn tired to talk about it by nighttime. Others that share the same "mindset" will communicate the best they can in their own way and may not be aware of their present damages. If the behavior pattern is changed the next day, the brain - being a complex, resilient life-form, will recover to the extent of the context of the previous damage. The person will then not share anything in common with yesterday's tribe and will subsequently associate with a new "tribe" with different communication norms.

    Culture is a mindset and some researchers continue to explore homosexuality as a culture that must be explained, rather than a physiology that has yet to be proven. The problem is science has a need to explain the purpose of all functions of life-forms, whereas homosexuality and your desire to mate with Fluffy serves no functional need in the evolution of species. Or do they? Perhaps evolution is all about "gee, what if I mix this with that, what will I get?"
    So in that regard, homosexuality and bestiality is a natural evolutionary function and not a perversion from a broken mind. But where do you draw the line? Are serial murders an evolutionary function or are possessors of truly "broken minds".

    Behavior and communication are interactions among the interfaces (minds) of a culture.

    The problem with physc and for that matter all science is that it doesn't allow for the inclusion of spirit or the "beyond" since it is not presently measurable and crosses over into the area that religion has claimed for thousands of years - which science abhors. And that is a shame. I liken that to the same resistance that the Catholic church had in the middle ages to science concepts when the church was the government.

    The challenge is to filter the spirit from the mind and to identify what behaviors are environmental and what is spiritual. But that may lead to a circular effort that merely discovers that we are all the same at our core, or are part of a "sea of consciousness".

    Probably then the effort is just thrown right back to the shrinks to develop therapies for maintaining the health of the brain.

    The state or health of the mind is an ongoing science that relies on inquiring "shrinks", like yourself, Jack to continue to delve into the most complex of all human physical parts.

    Sorry but I can't really disagree with you here but expound. Keep on contributing to the body of knowledge (BOK) !!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kate:

    I didn't mean "questioning" as in "questioning the values of the group". I meant, literally, asking questions.

    The classic example is this:

    I am walking down the road with my friend. We see a stranger also walking down the road, who then crosses the road.

    I say "So, why did he cross the road?" to my friend. The act of saying this question puts the action out of the ordinary, and into the realm of "stuff that damn well needs to be explained". Normative. We don't know the answer, shrug, say "huh", and mark this person as just a wee little bit whacko. My friend says to me: "Stop starting your sentences with 'So'". ugh.

    Now, new fr'instance:

    Same scenario, but there is a McDonalds across the road. When I ask my question, my friend says to me "Don't you see the McDonalds?" . My friend is firmly putting the stranger's activity back into the class of "things that don't need to be explained"

    I can go on at great length, with examples and counter examples -- it is, after all, a standard 60s type discussion, which I had a zillion times.

    Thought of another good "mind" example:

    "Who knows what goes on in the mind of a .....(fill in the blank, often sexist or ageist)". Using "the mind" as a normative phrase that clearly emphasizes deviance from the way things should be.

    This is, after all, about the usage of words, not the internal working of the, dare I say, mind.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dougster:

    I think we are talking about different things. I was thinking about how we use "mind" in ordinary conversations. Pretty dull work, pretty grinding work. Some interesting stuff finally goes on, but it takes forever to get there.

    I get confused by words and concepts like "spirit" and "receiver of spiritual transmissions"; bear in mind that I get confused pretty easily by now. In your post, you explicitly use "mind" and "brain" as interchangeable. I just don't think that's the way it works. I think when people talk about "brain", they are referring to the grey slimy object that bounces around inside the skull. When they talk about mind, they are attempting to put behaviors either inside or outside the normal realm of activity.

    But, what do I know....

    ReplyDelete
  8. James:

    Sorry I left your comment in limbo for so long.

    I'm curious about the first sentence of the second paragraph, and wonder if there was a word left out, as it seems to go against what you say elsewhere.

    I think we completely agree about the use of mind in ordinary discussion. I don't know enough about non-Western approaches to all this stuff, but I am leery of the problem of translation; when I read the non-Western lit, I am always very conscious that the text may be pushing me in a direction the original writer never imagined. It must be terribly difficult to translate such slippery concepts.

    Thanks for your contribution, and I want more!!! Keep reading, and posting!!!!

    ReplyDelete