🥪 👜 Ma’amalade sandwich Your Majesty?

By the River (a Psyche Film, 25 mins)

 

At India’s ‘death hotels’, devout Hindus seek liberation from cycles of rebirth

For the people of Varanasi – the holiest of India’s seven sacred cities – death is a blessing. Stretching along the banks of the river Ganges, Varanasi is a place where devout Hindus go to die in the hope of achieving moksha: freedom from the endless cycle of death and rebirth (samsara). ‘Death hotels’ provide a home for those in wait: from the elderly or dying to some who are in good health when they check in and spend half a lifetime waiting for their salvation. For such healthy devotees, the promise of going ‘directly to God’ and a peaceful death make living in a death hotel an essential aspect of their being, even if it means leaving family and friends behind.

In By the River, the Norwegian Brazilian director Dan Braga Ulvestad brings us inside the spiritual gates of Varanasi, immersing us in a city where funeral pyres burn in plain sight and decomposed bodies float downstream. Interviewing the faithful residing in two hotels, Mumukshu Bhawan and Mukti Bhawan, Ulvestad examines how deeply embedded death is in the culture, conversation and conscience of those living in Varanasi – children and adults alike. One resident explains that many locals cremate bodies for their livelihoods, a cultural tradition that has been passed down through generations – and one that is not reserved for adults alone. In a surprising turn, a group of children candidly discuss how they, too, partake in the ritual: ‘we burn the body and our work is done’.

The film’s final sequence at the Ganga Aarta ceremony offers us a sense of how intimately connected the living are with those who came before them. This spiritual ritual is an explosion of music, prayer and fire, bringing thousands together on the banks of the River Ganges to honour the dead. Ulvestad and the Australian director of photography Caleb Ware capture expressions of grief and solemn reflection as the bodies of the recently deceased are enveloped by crackling fire. While orange embers fly through the night sky, tears streak the cheeks of those moved by the ceremony. Prayers are whispered over the beat of drums and sound of horns; flowers are scattered; and the sky becomes shrouded in smoke.

By the River grapples with profound and enduring questions: what does it mean to have a good death? Can the true meaning of life be understood only in dying? What does it mean to be forever in search of salvation – and what can that pursuit cost? Underlying the film’s artful visuals are ideas about the mechanics of suffering and of contentment. The result is an engrossing portrayal of a cultural tradition, as well as a powerful contemplation of the human condition.

Written by Olivia Hains

By the river | Psyche Films

 

 

 

 

Time of my Life [15/05/22]

 

“We're all goin' on a summer holiday

No more workin' for a week or two”

 

So sang Cliff Richard in ‘Summer Holiday’

 

“Fun and laughter on a summer holiday

No more worries for me or you

For a week or two”

 

Well, it’s time for another kind of holiday

 

I’m gonna take a week’s break from

anxiety, worry, guilt and shame

Gonna have seven splendid days without

feeling inadequate and a failure

 

Freely taking 10080 minutes in

the company of my loving self and

happily, oh so happily

experiencing 604800 seconds of my

there-is-nothing-wrong-with-me -ness

 

I’m goin’ to have the time of my life!

“And a dream come true”

 

 

(marking tomorrow's Full Moon/Total Lunar Eclipse in Scorpio)

 

A broad definition of trauma is useful; an open-ended one isn’t (by Ahona Guha)

 

The concept of trauma now permeates our zeitgeist like never before, with a growing awareness of both the range of events that can be considered traumatic and the tendrils of harm that trauma can send into the lives of victims. As the sexual abuse survivor Grace Tame, winner of the 2021 Australian of the Year award, recently said, we must have an ‘open and honest discussion about trauma and what that can look like. It can be ugly. It can look like drugs. Like self-harm, skipping school, getting impulsive tattoos and all kinds of other unconscious, self-destructive, maladaptive coping mechanisms.’ Her statement will leave clinicians working in the field of trauma nodding, familiar as we are with the darker and more destructive impulses trauma can engender. Abuse and trauma can have far-reaching impacts, sometimes making life itself feel so painful as to be untenable.

The conceptualisation of trauma has changed significantly over time. Historically, much of the clinical thinking about trauma has taken a narrow view, assuming that trauma (derived from the Greek for ‘wound’) necessitated the infliction of physical wounds and harms. In the early 20th century, clinicians recognised manifestations of trauma in soldiers, using terms such as ‘shell shock’ and ‘war neurosis’. Later, a collection of frequently observed after-effects of trauma were reconceptualised as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD is one of the most well-known mental health conditions arising after trauma, with symptom clusters of trauma intrusions (such as flashbacks and nightmares), avoidance (of memories of the trauma), emotional and cognitive changes (such as persistent negative emotions or distorted beliefs about oneself or others) and changes in arousal and reactivity (such as hypervigilance).

Since the time PTSD first entered the diagnostic lexicon, our conception of trauma – including the causes of traumatisation and how it manifests – has grown more encompassing. There has been easy recognition that a range of experiences, such as exposure to war, assault, rape and anything else that involves a disturbing and life-threatening event can lead to post-traumatic difficulties. We now also know that events that are not directly life-threatening, including behaviours such as emotional abuse, financial abuse, bullying and neglect, can lead to post-traumatic reactions and responses. When traumas compound or occur at key developmental ages, a person may develop complex post-traumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD), which involves difficulties related to a person’s self-concept, emotional development, thinking and interpersonal functioning. The concept of trauma has also been expanded such that witnessing a traumatic event as part of work might qualify one for a diagnosis of post-traumatic disorders, lending recognition to concepts such as the vicarious traumatisation experienced by professionals such as first responders.

There are a number of potential reasons why the conception of trauma has widened. And with the expansion of ways in which the term ‘trauma’ is used, there are also concerns that it is now being overused. The psychologist Nick Haslam suggests that the changing meaning of trauma is underpinned by what he calls ‘concept creep’, reflective of increasing liberalisation of society and a greater focus on moral harms. He notes that concepts that refer to negative aspects of human experience (such as bullying and prejudice) have expanded over time to capture less harmful variants of the same behaviour, as well as qualitatively new phenomena. Michele Cascardi and Cathy Brown have provided a somewhat contrasting view, arguing that the broadening of our understanding of certain psychological concepts often constitutes a meaningful expansion. ‘When meaningful expansion occurs,’ they write, ‘a concept is altered in a thoughtful way to include new behaviours in new contexts,’ which ‘points toward constructive strategies for harm reduction.’

A broadened conception of trauma clearly has some key benefits. First is the recognition it provides trauma victims who might have hitherto found it difficult to name their experiences and acknowledge the impact. It is difficult to understand and treat something that remains unacknowledged. Second, recognising the variety of behaviours that can cause trauma has allowed us to seek protection for people from these behaviours, which might not have been recognised as harmful in the past. Marital rape, for example, was long not even acknowledged as an offence. Severe bullying has become enshrined in law as a criminal offence just within the past decade. People have slowly recognised that behaviours that were historically accepted as normal cause significant harm and must be stopped – resulting, overall, in moves toward a fairer and kinder society.

Top of Form

However, as with many phenomena that draw popular focus, when viewed through the lens of social media, the concept of trauma has started to warp in counterproductive ways. Even as attention is drawn to some of the darker and more difficult ways trauma can manifest, the social media landscape demonstrates a concomitant lightening of trauma – focusing on purported symptoms such as perfectionism, high-functioning anxiety, people-pleasing and difficulty relaxing. It is also now common to see social media channels characterising relatively innocuous behaviours and habits as symptoms of trauma – eg, watching a show repeatedly, struggling to make small decisions, overpreparing, overanalysing, and becoming defensive. To be clear, none of these are clinical symptoms of trauma disorders as per current diagnostic criteria. They might be habits derived from the ways that some people have learned to adapt and function after experiencing trauma, but they might also simply be temperamental quirks, or even adaptive ways people have learned to function in a fast-paced world.

Understanding when certain behaviours are truly underpinned by trauma requires careful psychological exploration and understanding of the nuances of psychopathology. The more common trauma responses for which survivors seek psychological therapy are much more severe than the behaviours listed above: suicidal thoughts, self-harm, drug use, self-hatred, disabling anxiety, eating disorders, aggression and violence are the ones I commonly see. Trauma is a complex phenomenon, made even more so by the wide variety of clinical difficulties associated with a history of trauma and the number of overlapping diagnoses (such as major depressive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, and borderline personality disorder) that someone with a trauma history might present with. Clinical work involves re-diagnosing someone through the lens of trauma, and determining an appropriate treatment modality, such as cognitive processing therapy for PTSD.

The complexities of trauma also include the fuzzy divisions between events that are truly wounding to the psyche and those that might be aversive and difficult, but are not traumatic. Exactly where these boundaries lie is unclear. But this work is not as simple as concluding: ‘You have anxiety after a difficult experience, ergo you must be traumatised.’

‘Traumabait’ is what I call the overinclusive use of the construct of trauma. Often, it appears to be generated by those who wish to sell a product or an idea, or who want to position themselves as relatable social media influencers and have recognised simply that trauma sells.

The overuse of the concept of trauma could come with some risks. It has the potential to promote overdiagnosis or inaccurate self-diagnosis, which can lead to other difficulties (eg, a misdiagnosis of PTSD might lead to delays in accessing appropriate treatment); redirection of limited treatment resources away from those with more severe need; intolerance of experiences that are difficult but not disabling, resulting in reduced psychological flexibility and resilience; and a hyper-focus on one problem or set of symptoms to the exclusion of others. I have worked with clients in my practice who sought assistance for PTSD after self-diagnosing. In some cases, careful clinical assessment eventually revealed that they did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, and that therapy interventions other than trauma-based ones were required. On a number of occasions, other pertinent conditions have explained symptoms that people attributed to trauma – such as sensory overwhelm caused by autism spectrum disorders.

Interestingly, though, while I often find that the overuse of ‘trauma’ plays out loudly in the social media sphere, my experiences in the therapy room are frequently quite different. Many clients find it difficult to name the aversive things that happened to them, and they say things like: ‘Well, it wasn’t that bad/as bad as X.’ It is common to have to point out that certain ways of coping (eg, social anxiety) might indeed be reflective of trauma, a learned response when they were faced with a world that was dangerous.

In my practice, I find it helpful to use a reasonably broad definition of trauma. There are no firm, clear-cut boundaries between the kind of event that causes traumatic responses and the kind that doesn’t. I typically use the formal diagnostic criteria for PTSD and C-PTSD as initial guides, and then explore the range of adversities experienced by clients, including the impact of these events on a developing personality and the meaning someone derives from these events. I largely find it helpful to allow clients to use the terminology that they wish to use, including the word ‘trauma’.

Therapists commonly use the word ‘trauma’ when talking about bullying just as we do when talking about rape. However, there are many challenging human experiences that we do not need to pathologise. We can allow clients to notice that some things are aversive and difficult without necessarily entering the realm of trauma (such as being teased by a sibling, or cheated on by a spouse). It is possible to acknowledge, note and soothe distress without needing to legitimise it by assigning it the trauma label. Similarly, it is normal to encounter difficult interpersonal situations such as marital affairs, fights with friends or sibling rivalries, and it might even be helpful to learn to build resilience and interpersonal skills through facing these situations.

Understanding the difference between the traumatic and the distressing is essential to helping people develop healthy identities that are characterised by psychological flexibility and resilience. While bringing mental health terms into common parlance is valuable for awareness-raising, it is important to employ these terms sensibly in order to ensure that people develop useful conceptualisations of their difficulties. A conception of trauma that is well off the mark could end up harming more than it helps.

A broad definition of trauma is useful; an open-ended one isn’t | Psyche Ideas

 

How to Be Alone (by Pádraig Ó Tuama - animated poem)

A tender poem doubles as a guide to sitting comfortably in one’s own company

There is a you
telling you another story of you.
Listen to her.

The Irish writer and theologian Pádraig Ó Tuama’s poem ‘How to Be Alone’ (also styled as ‘How to Belong Be Alone’) packages some practical advice for approaching life – in moments and over the decades – into some very eloquent stanzas. This animated treatment, which sees Ó Tuama narrating and the animator Leo G Franchi providing visuals, uses a cool colour palette and a style emulating a collage of paper cut-outs to draw out the poem’s gentle and tactile qualities. The resulting short is a brief yet powerful reminder of how to find comfort in one’s own company.

Illustrator and Animator: Leo G Franchi

Writer: Pádraig Ó Tuama

Website: The On Being Project

A tender poem doubles as a guide to sitting comfortably in one’s own company | Aeon Videos

 

The Spiritual Exercises (A Psyche Film, 18 mins)

 

What happens when two people on life’s spiritual path find each other?

Terence Netter was raised in a Roman Catholic family knowing that he ‘belonged in the Jesuits’. As someone mostly uninterested in coupling, Therese Franzese grew up feeling like she didn’t fit in. Both were guided by a desire to live a spiritual life, and neither imagined that romantic love would upend their lifelong searches for meaning. The Spiritual Exercises follows the story of Terence and Therese’s unlikely union, detailing how their partnership developed, and what it meant to reconcile their romantic relationship with their Catholic faith. Throughout the film, their story unfolds within the framework of the Jesuit Christian meditations – prayers aimed to ensure that no decision is made ‘under the influence of any inordinate attachment’. But for Terence and Therese, love would become a force strong enough to break the scaffolding on which two people had built their lives, and ultimately shift their values and rewrite their futures.

In the film, Terence and Therese’s two narrative threads slowly weave together. With craft and care, the American directors Lloyd Kramer and Scott Chestnut cut between Therese and Terence’s parallel retellings of the past until their stories play out in tandem. Bringing this rich narrative to visual life, the directors draw on archive footage and photographs to paint a picture of the cultural milieu of 1960s New York where the couple met. Film clips from the Metropolitan Opera where Therese worked, images from Terence’s art exhibitions, and black-and-white family portraits weave a tapestry of memories. Throughout, the Catholic Church’s millennia-old celibacy requirement for priests, which was reaffirmed by Pope Paul VI in 1967, lingers in the background.

By asking what it means to leave your church for love, The Spiritual Exercises grapples with themes beyond what it’s like to feel at inextricable odds with a lifelong commitment to a religious order. Terence and Therese’s difficult decisions about finding meaning in their lives invite viewers to contemplate serendipity, the roads taken and those we chose to leave behind, giving their relationship a universal resonance as they struggle to make their undeniable love for one another fit into their lives. Through their story, The Spiritual Exercises forms a gentle yet powerful exploration of sacrifice, love and peace of mind – and the inherent tensions between the three.

Written by Olivia Hains

The spiritual exercises | Psyche Films

 

 

Rigid Diversity (by Theodore Dalrymple)

 

It is not necessary for a government to be thoroughgoingly despotic for us to live in a totalitarian condition in which we are afraid to say some things and—what is even worse—are required to say others. In such a condition, we are obliged to deny what we believe and assent to what we do not believe.

There is no better way to destroy the human personality than this. As a result, people become cynical, time-serving, and increasingly self-absorbed. Their impotence breeds apathy. Once they start to utter things for the sake of their careers or their peace and quiet that they do not believe, they lose all self-respect and probity and thus their standing to resist anything. People without probity are easy to control and manipulate; the purpose of political correctness is not to enunciate truth but to exercise power.

The present totalitarian threat comes not from government, as it once did, but from the universities and the intellectuals, or semi-intellectuals, that they turn out. The governments of liberal, or once-liberal, democracies lamely follow the fashions and obsessions that emerge from universities, and few politicians have the courage or the stamina to resist them. To do so would require a willingness to present an intellectual case against them, not once but repeatedly, as well as the mental equivalent of a rhinoceros hide to be unaffected by the opprobrium and insult to which they would be subjected (insult these days being the highest form of argument). Suffice it to say that we do not live in times propitious to patient argumentation by politicians about matters of principle. What cannot be said in three words will not be heard, so that surrender is the default setting.

“Academic drivel seeps out and soaks into what some people call the real world.”

A young researcher of my acquaintance, of a type who would once have easily found a job in a university, being both extremely well qualified academically and temperamentally suited to the scholarly life, now finds there is almost no place for him in the world of universities. Multilingual, he could work in any of several countries, but his applications are turned down, almost certainly in favor of people less able or qualified than he. His problem is that he is interested in the wrong things. Even applying for a job, particularly in American universities, is now a kind of Calvary for the person who does not share modern academic-bureaucratic obsession with race and sexual proclivities. In order to apply, the applicant must fill forms about his attitude toward diversity—there being, of course, no permissible diversity in attitudes toward diversity.

Many universities now demand a personal “diversity statement” from the applicant. According to one university:

[The] purpose of the statement is to identify candidates who have professional skills, experience and/or willingness to engage in activities that would enhance campus diversity and equity efforts….

This requires of the successful candidate either a full commitment to the fatuous ideology of diversity or an ability to act as if he adhered to it. To admit that all that you want to do is to study the life and times of, say, William the Silent, the Khedive Ismail, or Dr. José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia, and convey your enthusiasm for this subject to others, would be fatal to your chances. You must want, in the cant phrase of our times, to make a difference, in other words to reform society into a totalitarian dictatorship of virtue.

Here is advice on what you should write in your diversity statement:

Concentrate on issues such as race, gender, social class and sexual orientation. Don’t try to tone down your statement by writing about how it is hard to be a Kansan in Missouri, for example. Instead, write about racial oppression, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism or some other commonly recognized form of oppression.

In other words, you must bring your straw to the fires of resentment, so that the diversity bureaucracy will never extinguish them and therefore never be out of a job.

You might have thought that there was little opportunity for Diversity-Thought (Human Resources Maoism) in disciplines such as biology, the physical sciences, or engineering—but you would be wrong. The applicant has to promise to promote racial, sexual, and class diversity in the physics lab, though this, of course, might—indeed would—mean discriminating against the best people as established by such socially retrograde criteria as research record. Here is the opening sentence of a diversity statement recommended as a model for those who are applying for a post in a university department of science and engineering:

I am well aware that being a scientist or researcher does not mean just being successful in research. At the same time one should be excellent in his/her interactions with the community and the students, in his/her role to lead the academic society and in responsibilities to transform the community.

No Isaac Newton need apply, then, because he was notably not excellent in his interactions with the community, nor were his numerological and alchemical speculations likely to transform it.

Not being familiar with the academic world, I checked a website on which university academic jobs in the humanities were advertised. This is the kind of thing that I found:

We specifically welcome candidates with interdisciplinary teaching expertise in one or more of the following areas: postcolonial studies, decoloniality, critical race theory, queer of color critique, ethnic studies, indigenous and/or settler colonialism studies, disability studies, feminist theories, gender and sexuality studies, transnational studies, or composition and rhetoric with a specialization in any of the above areas. As we strive to create the most intellectually diverse, equitable, and inclusive institution that we can, we especially encourage candidates from historically underrepresented groups to apply.

Comment is redundant.

But does any of this matter? I think it does. Academic drivel seeps out and soaks into what some people call the real world. My acquaintance, despairing of academe, tried for a job in the private sector (again in America). The application form included the following question: “Are you interested in any of our diversity and affiliation groups, yes or no?”

(The correct answer is not difficult to guess, nor are the consequences of getting it wrong.) The groups in question were LGTBQ, blacks, Latinos, women, and Asians.

But what about the poor foot fetishists? Who speaks for them?

Rigid Diversity - Taki's Magazine - Taki's Magazine (takimag.com)