CAUTION MORE CRAZINESS AND DEVIANCE!!

When you think of the word crazy what are the images that come to mind?  Padded rooms and straightjackets, serial killers with a maniacal laugh?  How about the girl next door, your mom, or even yourself?  Even more important than the image itself is how do you feel about that image? Do you feel fear?  Do you feel curiosity? Do you feel dismissive?  Do you think of “crazy” as someone else’s problem? Do you feel compassion?  How society defines crazy and labels people as crazy creates a stigma, but through reclamation those suffering from mental illness can start to gain hope for better understanding and treatment.

Crazy is defined both in a formal context and informal context.  Dictionary.com provides the formal definition as being “mentally deranged, senseless, totally unsound”.(1)  As a slang term Dictionary.com defines crazy as “intensely enthusiastic, very enamored, intensely anxious”.(1) Even among these types of definitions there is a sense of extremeness and being absolute.  Another thing all these definitions have in common is that crazy is used to describe or explain the source of emotional and/or behavioral attributes.  These definitions for the term crazy are relatively new and how the term is defined has changed over time.  Historical definitions also vary I found definitions from “full of cracks and flaws from 1580’s” to “a slang term used in the jazz scene to mean cool and exciting from 1920’s”.(2)  In centuries past being labeled crazy could mean various things from an individual being possessed by a demon, morally repugnant, or of a criminal nature.  These meanings to the label crazy conjured up feelings of fear and people labeled crazy often ended up in prison.  Whether the term is used in the formal way or as slang it is used to describe extreme states of being or behaviors.  With the implication of extremeness comes fear, fear of possibly going too far away from social norms.  The difference between the formal usage and slang usage is that as a formal definition it is an overtly pejorative term, but when used in slang the same term becomes a covertly pejorative term.  For the purpose of this analysis crazy will be used to describe the label given to someone diagnosed with a mental illness.  At the core of this definition is that the term crazy is not only a label but a deviant label. 

According to Becker’s labeling theory people are deviant because they are labeled so by a part of society due to being caught engaging in an act or behavior that goes against a social norm, or agreed upon rule made up by and enforced by society.  This interaction between the individual and society creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of the person being deviant.  This happens because the label itself comes with assumptions, other meanings and feelings toward the label by society.  Society then treats the individual according to their label not their individual traits, creating a lens through which the individual’s behavior is viewed.  The individual is also excluded from socially accepted conventional groups as part of being labeled deviant.  Due to these interactions with society and self the individual starts to identify with the label and act according to the traits of that label. (3)

As a deviant label Becker’s labeling theory can be applied to the term crazy to better understand the social interaction that goes on when someone is labeled crazy.  An example of this can be seen when looking at the behavior of hoarding and how people who engage in this behavior are labeled as being crazy.  Often when people lose someone close to them or have a hard time engaging in personal relationships they become attached to material objects.  If the person breaks the social norm of having a neat and clutter free environment in an extreme way it can get the attention of society.  The person might be labeled as being a hoarder and mentally ill.  All other behaviors are seen as symptoms of being crazy.  Society ostracizes the person for their behavior, creating more stress and anxiety.  This often leads the person to further isolate themselves from people and surround themselves with inanimate objects, increasing the hoarding behavior.  The individual sees themselves as a hoarder deserving of the negative image, which also encourages isolating and hoarding behaviors.  This theory also shows how once someone is labeled crazy it is difficult to change that label.  As Rosenhan stated “A psychiatric label has a life and influence of its own.”  Once labeled crazy it is near impossible to remove the label.  You can be viewed as in remission or managing symptoms well, but once you are labeled crazy that becomes your master status among those who know your diagnosis.  This comes with expectations of future symptoms, breakdowns, or episodes.  These expectations feed into fear, anxiety, stress, and self doubt for the patient, making the label of crazy a sticky label.(4)           

Since the deviant label of crazy is a sticky one mental illness is seen by society as a chronic condition.  The fact that mental illness is seen as a chronic condition is part of the reason there is a lot of fear and stigmatization around the term crazy.  Goffman has defined stigma as “any physical or social attribute or sign that so devalues a person’s social identity that it disqualifies that person from full social acceptance.”(5)  The stigma of being labeled crazy comes with many beliefs about the person by society.  Some of these beliefs are; that the person is unstable, incapable of rational thought, prone to fits of outrage, dangerous, possibly violent towards others or self.  Also, many people think that crazy people are just seeking attention or even that crazy people are processed by the devil.  These stigmas attached to mental illness and the label of crazy can have many adverse effects on a person.  People labeled as crazy can face discrimination in the workplace, in education, or when trying to find housing.  There is a lack of understanding by others for those with mental illness.  There is also a belief that the mentally ill cannot improve their situation. (6)  The stigma attached to the label needs to be removed but this cannot be done simply through telling people that it is a physical disorder like other physical disorders. The stigma remains because it is seen as something that doesn’t go away – there is no cure.  Also people have different feelings about the brain compared to other parts of the body. (7) Hopefully through education and awareness the stigma can start to fade so that those with mental illness are seen as the complex individuals they are and not boiled down to one attribute – their mental illness.  Reducing the stigma of the word crazy can also be done by reclaiming the word by those within the mentally ill community.                

Reclaiming language is a way in which a marginalized minority group can take an offensive word, claim it, and redefine the word to suit them, and highlight positive attributes.  Women have done this by reclaiming the word bitch.  Some say it means “Babe In Total Control of Herself”.  Others use the word bitch to mean a strong powerful woman. (8)  Reclaiming the word crazy has been done by those within the mentally ill community with varying meanings and with the help of the internet and social media these meanings have spread.  One blog post used it to describe genius.  Also there is a common quote on-line about the meaning of crazy; “The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.” (9) Some have redefined it to mean magical thinking, creative and intuitive. (10)  Also being crazy can be seen as being brave enough to be different.  Even with all these positive outlooks on the word crazy there are mixed opinions on reclaiming the word crazy.  It can be empowering, but the context in which the word is used is a very important consideration to be taken before using it, even if it is a reclamatory fashion. (10,11)

Crazy is a powerful word, this power can be used for good or evil.  It can be used positively as we have seen in the reclaiming of the word.  However, crazy has traditionally been used by society to label people and then treat them as deviants not deserving of equal treatment or compassion.  People labeled crazy to be feared and not trusted.  This traditional usage is evil and needs to be changed.  As a society we need to see people suffering from mental illness as complex individuals deserving of equal treatment and compassion.  

word count: 1,436

REFERENCES

1.Dictionary.com. 

 http://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/crazy
2.    Online Etymology Dictionary. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=crazy
3.    Becker, Howard. 1963. “Labeling Theory.” Pp.39-41 Readings In Deviant Behavior, edited by A. Thio, T.C. Calhoun, A. Conyers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4.    Rosenhan, David. 1973. “Being Sane In Insane Places.” Pp133-137 in Readings In Deviant Behavior, edited by A. Thio, T.C. Calhoun, A. Conyers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
5.    Kendall, Diana. 2010. Sociology in Our Times: The Essentials. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
6. The Mayo Clinic. “Mental Health: Overcoming the Stigma of Mental Illness.” http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mental-health/MH00076
7.    Wyckoff, Whitney. “Despite Deeper Understanding Of Mental Illness, Stigma Still Lingers." https://lms.wsu.edu/section/content/default.asp?WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSCNT&ENTRY_ID=1E37BB054E3C46C2A62E056B3753C45D 
8.  “Social Justice – Reclaiming Language. Jan. 23, 2010. http://brilliantmindbrokenbody.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/social-justice-reclaiming-language/
9. Braiden, Sue. Feb. 21, 2011. “Here’s to The Crazy One’s.” http://g33ksquared.com/grok/menu-top-aha/154-aha-ad-apple.html
10.  Not singing the bi-polar blues blog. "Call Me Crazy Please" posted Sept. 2011. http://notsingingthebipolarblues.blogspot.com/2010/09/call-me-crazy-please.html  
11.  This aint livin' blog. "Reclamation: Marginalized bodies, Self Labeling and Empowerment" posted April 2010. http://meloukhia.net/2010/04/reclamation_marginalised_bodies_self_labeling_and_empowerment

ADDICTION SEPERATING TRUTH AND MYTH

Addiction is a complicated subject.  People often have different ideas about it, different pictures of what addiction is and what an addict is.  One definition that I found that really illustrates how the concept of addiction is socially constructed is, “Certain individuals use certain substances in certain ways thought at certain times to be unacceptable by certain other individuals for reasons both certain and uncertain…!” (1).  Although this definition is somewhat humorous and does illustrate how addiction is a social construction it leaves a lot unanswered and doesn’t leave us with an agreed upon working definition.  What I have learned through several psychology courses is that addiction can be defined as continuing a particular behavior even after experiencing negative consequences for that behavior sometimes with or without physical dependence or compulsiveness towards the behavior.  The negative consequences can come in the form of criminal charges, loss of job, loss of status, and damaging family ties just to name a few.  This definition is broad but the benefit of a broad definition like this is it looks past societies views of using some substances as being acceptable and using other substances not acceptable.  Also, this definition can look beyond substance use and look at other behaviors such as gambling or sex as being sources of addiction.  The focus of this definition is on continuing behavior despite negative consequences and often in spite of increased negative consequences for the behavior.  In this blog when I refer to addiction it is this definition I will be alluding to.  However, I will not be tackling all addictions.  I will be focusing on addictions involving alcohol, prescription drugs, and illicit drugs. 

In U.S. history it wasn’t till the 1900’s that there started to be laws and legislation regulating and outlawing certain substances.  In the 1900’s partly due to the popularity of patent medicines addiction was at its highest.

  In 1906 the Pure Food and Drug Act created the FDA and got rid of patent medicines. In 1914 the Harrison Act was passed that targeted only opium, cocaine and their derivatives.  In 1920 the 18^th Amendment was passed prohibiting alcohol only to be repealed in 1933. 

 In 1937 the Marijuana Tax Act was passed which lead to the prohibition of Marijuana.  All of these laws and legislation were not based on real harm to people and society but based on strong political lobby’s that had something to gain from these substances being prohibited.(2)

This was made possible by the powerful tool of the media.  The media has been used over and over to make the American public believe that some substances are more dangerous than others not based on actual harm but based on political motives of those in power.  In the 1930’s and 1940’s it was reefer madness and other racial images of people using marijuana then acting crazy and uncontrollable. 

 In the 1960’s and 1970’s negative images of hippies and anti-war protestors were rampant along with the message that they were all on drugs.  In the 1980’s it was crack cocaine which was racialized as an African American inner city problem with nightly images on newscasts of African American people using crack and killing each other.   At the turn of the century the new demon was methamphetamines with images of poor people doing terrible acts to just get there next fix.  The whole time the media is selling society this image that illicit drugs are bad they are also selling society an image that alcohol and prescription drugs are good.  Alcohol has been glamorized over and over and big money goes into TV commercials portraying images that if you drink alcohol it is nothing but good times and beautiful women.

  As far as prescription medication goes there are commercial after commercial saying that no matter what ails you just take this magic pill and all your problems will be solved.  This sounds very familiar to the snake oil salesman of the late 1800’s that lead to epidemic addiction rates in 1900.  Although most prescription drugs receive positive publicity one pain medication Oxycontin has not.  Once again however this campaign that Oxycontin was being abused at epidemic rates was not based in fact and targeted the poor.(5)  All of these messages contradict recent studies.  Recent studies show that not only is alcohol the most harmful to society and to the individual but also kills more people worldwide than AIDS, TB, and Violence.(3&4)  Unfortunately this is not the message we get from the media or the leaders who make laws determining which drugs are acceptable to use and which drugs if used automatically make you a drug addict and a criminal.

The lack of success for both alcohol and marijuana prohibition are examples of why criminalizing the use of these substances just drives certain behaviors underground and creates more crime.  There are ways to fight addiction without criminalizing drug use and procession.  “The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, not a criminal law, did more to reduce the level of addiction than any other single statute we have passed in all of the times from then to now.”(2)  Another way to handle addiction without criminalization is the medicalization of addiction.

With the medicalization of addiction and treating it as a disease there are positive and negative effects.  The criminal justice system would lose a lot of its revenue if drugs were decriminalized and drug addiction seen as purely a medical issue.  For the addict seeking treatment it can still be hard and they can still be seen as deviant.  Because of the history of drugs being criminalized and the media portrayal of some drugs being acceptable and others not there is still a harsh stigma associated with being considered a drug addict.  There is also a misconception that if a person is a drug addict they have engaged in other criminal behavior, which increases the stigma.  Also, in our society addiction is seen as an individual’s problem and a sign that the individual has a lack of control, will power and character.    

If as a society we could shift our view and portrayal of addiction as a disease like cancer and those afflicted with it as being tough, strong individuals who have fought to overcome or manage their disease then addiction would start to lose its stigma.  Although the medical community is already involved in fighting this disease with the destigmatization of addiction the medical community would benefit more with more funding for research, prevention and treatment like many other diseases.  Also more insurance companies would cover drug treatment programs.  If there wasn’t the stigma attached to drug addiction then people would be more honest when talking to their doctors about their drug use which would allow doctors to better treat their patients. 

Word count:1127

REFERENCES

1.     Burglass & Schaffer. 1984. as cited by Bill Griesar instructor Psychology 265 WSUV

2.    Whitebread, Charles. 1995. “The History of The Non-Medical Use of Drugs in The United States”

3.    Nebehay, Stephanie. “Alcohol Kills More Than AIDS, TB, or Violence: WHO”

4.    The Economist. “Scoring Drugs: Drugs That Cause Most Harm”

5.    Inciardi and Goode. 2003. “Oxycontin: A Prescription for Disaster” 

Film Review: Generation RX

1.       The main thesis of this film was that in the U.S. children are being medicated with dangerous psychoactive drugs and alarming rates with dangerous affects on them, their families, and society.  The purpose of doing this is to make ridiculous amounts of money for pharmaceutical corporations as well controlling children in the classroom. 

2.       The main arguments to support this thesis were many.  The number of kids being medicated in the last couple of decades has grown exponentially.  The number of school shootings, suicides and other violent acts committed by children on these medications is high.  Also there was a scandal involving Eli Lily, the pharmaceutical manufacturer of Prozac, to cover up the fact that Prozac can cause increased suicidal ideation.  There is a conflict of interest for the DSM panel because most of them have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. 

3.       This ties into the class because now not being able to sit still for a long period of time, focus on the task at hand and follow strict instructions well is seen as deviant.  Wanting to move around and use your imagination is seen as deviant.  These behaviors are seen as problems and labeled as being ADHD.  Being sad because a friend moved away or a pet died is seen as deviant therefore problematic and labeled as depression.  Being anxious about school and friendships as a teenager is seen as deviant therefore problematic and labeled as anxiety disorder.  The mainstream society sees these things as medical conditions that need to be medicated instead of life conditions that are a part of growing up to be worked through with adult guidance.

4.       The fact that there was such a strong conflict of interest among the panel member for the DSM along with how much the pharmaceutical industry has grown.  When you look at that along with the tragic stories about the damage these drugs have done to people’s lives it is obvious these pharmaceutical companies don’t see these people as people but just statistics.  To the pharmaceutical companies who are only concerned with making money these people are just the unfortunate costs of doing business. 

5.       I found this documentary very compelling and I thought that every point they made tied together into the big picture that children are just an untapped market for these pharmaceutical companies.  I did think they could have made it more balanced.  I do believe there are some people who can benefit from these medications.  However, instead of being mass marketed these medications should only be used in extreme situations for short periods of time and under strict medical supervision like a hospital setting. 

6.         The point made that these medicated kids are not learning how to cope with life stresses along with damaging the prefrontal cortex of the brain; which is responsible for judgment, decision making and impulse control, makes me wonder of the kids who make it to adulthood how many of these adults then struggle with addiction problems.  I could use a large sample of people who are in drug treatment programs or jail for drug charges and do a survey.  The survey would include questions including; have they ever been on any medications as children or teenagers, how long where they on any medications, and what medications. 

CAUTION CRAZY!!!

When you think of the word crazy what are the images that come to mind?  Padded rooms and straightjackets, serial killers with a maniacal laugh?  How about the girl next door, your mom, or even yourself?  Even more important than the image itself is how do you feel about that image? Do you feel fear, curiosity, dismissive - someone else’s problem, or how about compassion?  Answers to these questions are as varied as the meanings of crazy.  Crazy is defined both in a formal context and informal context.  Dictionary.com provides the formal definition as being “mentally deranged, senseless, totally unsound”.(1)  As a slang term Dictionary.com defines crazy as “intensely enthusiastic, very enamored, intensely anxious”.(1) Even among these types of definitions there is a sense of extremeness and being absolute.  Another thing all these definitions have in common is that crazy is used to describe or explain the source of emotional and/or behavioral attributes.  These definitions for the term crazy are relatively new and how the term is defined has changed over time.

          Historical definitions also vary I found definitions from “full of cracks and flaws from 1580’s” to “a slang term used in the jazz scene to mean cool and exciting from 1920’s”.(2)  In centuries past being labeled crazy could mean various things from an individual being possessed by a demon, morally repugnant, or of a criminal nature.  These meaning to the label crazy conjured up feelings of fear and people labeled crazy often ended up in prison.  In the United States, one of the founding fathers, Benjamin Rush who was also physician, started to see being crazy as a mental illness. Not proof of possession by demons, a characteristic of criminals, or flaw in character.  He thought of mental illness as a type of physical aliment to be studied and treated like other physical ailments.  Below is a picture of Rush’s “Tranquilizing Chair” an invention he came up with to treat symptoms aka emotional states and/or behaviors that deviated so much from acceptable social norms they were seen as signs or indications of mental illness.  Because of his revolutionary view of what it means to be crazy and the sources he is considered the father of American Psychiatry by the American Psychiatric Association.(3)  The term crazy, once seen as a sign of criminality, moved to being a medical term but has come full circle back criminality. 

 

  

Some differences in using crazy to define criminality now compared to the past is that the wording of the label changed slightly to ‘criminally insane’ and the criminal justice system looks to so called medical experts when labeling someone criminally insane.  No one particular group owns the word or control over how it is defined.  As a result no one particular group can be blamed for the consequences of being labeled crazy. 

Everyone uses the term crazy whether as a slang term or a formal diagnosis.  However, certain groups use it more and shape how it is defined.  Some of the main players are; the criminal justice system, the medical community, and pharmaceutical companies.  How the term crazy is defined may benefit some people while at the same time stigmatizing and hurting others.  In the criminal justice system people who commit heinous acts against their fellow man may benefit from the label by avoiding execution and instead being sentenced to a hospital/prison for the “criminally insane”.  I don’t mean to imply that this is wrong or that people labeled ‘criminally insane’ are trying to get one over on the system.  I believe that can be the case sometimes, but I don’t think that is usually what is going. This is simply an observation of who benefits and how by being labeled crazy within the criminal justice system.  So who benefits from being labeled crazy by the co-owners of this term, the medical community?

          When looking at the medical community I think it is a little more complicated than the criminal justice system.  The kinder phrase ‘mental illness’ is typically the term used within the medical community, but this doesn’t mean the connotations are any kinder.  This term is used by the medical field as a whole but is used more and has heavier connotations within the specialization of psychology and psychiatric medicine.  For the patient being labeled crazy can be a double edged sword.  It can benefit a patient seeking treatment for pervasive emotions and behaviors that the patient sees as problematic or disruptive to daily life.  However, when it comes to that crazy patient’s overall healthcare the diagnosis can be problematic.  If the patient labeled crazy goes to a doctor complaining of serious symptoms that seem to have nothing to do with the patient’s mental state their mental state is still taken into consideration.  Especially if the doctor they go to can’t come up with a diagnosis to throw pills at.  The patient in this situation is not taken seriously and told in not so many words, that their problematic symptoms are just all in their head.  Although I have no studies to show how often this happens and would love to study this problem further, I do know from experience this does happen.  Patients can benefit from the label but can also be hurt by the label so who are the real winners in the crazy game?

Pharmaceutical companies benefit most from behaviors and emotional states being labeled as mental illness.  Once a behavior/emotional state is labeled as a symptom of mental illness they are given large amounts of money for research.  This research is not to cure the patient but to formulate a drug to manage the symptoms.  Then these companies market the drug through advertising of vague symptoms to the American public, but don’t worry just take this pill for what they hope will be the rest of your life.  This results in elevated diagnoses and increased profits for both the pharmaceutical company and the doctors the patient has to see for the prescription.(4) With this problematic system based on profit margins in place everyone is susceptible to being labeled crazy at some point in their life so why is it seen as a pejorative term? 

Whether the term is used in the formal way or as slang it is used to describe extreme states of being or behaviors.  With the implication of extremeness comes fear, fear of possibly going too far away from social norms.  The difference between the formal usage and slang usage is that as a formal definition it is an overtly pejorative term, but when used in slang the same term becomes a covertly pejorative term.  One of the reasons there is so much fear and stigmatization around this term is because it is seen as a chronic condition.  As Rosenhan stated “A psychiatric label has a life and influence of its own.”  Once labeled crazy it is near impossible to remove the label.  You can be viewed as in remission or managing symptoms well, but once you are labeled crazy that becomes your master status among those who know your diagnosis.  This comes with expectations of future symptoms, breakdowns, or episodes.  These expectations feed into fear, anxiety, stress, and self doubt for the patient.(5)  The stigma attached to the label needs to be removed but this cant be done simply through telling people that it is a physical disorder like other physical disorders. The stigma remains because it is seen as something that doesn’t go away – there is no cure.  Also people have different feelings about the brain compared to other parts of the body.(6)

There are mixed opinions on reclaiming the word crazy.  It can be empowering, but the context in which the word is used is a very important consideration to be taken before using it, even if it's meant to be in a reclamatory fashion.(7,8)  This is definetly a topic I will expand on.  As someone who has dealt with a mental illness label for 22 years I know the deviant label of crazy is a complex issue.  The label and how as a society we use it intersects with other deviations from the socially construct ideal of race, class, gender and sexuality.   

WORD COUNT: 1,261+

   

REFERENCES
1. Dictionary.com. 
 http://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/crazy

2.    Online Etymology Dictionary. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=crazy

3.    Brooks, Mike. “Benjamin Rush: Revolutionary Psychology.”  http://historymike.blogspot.com//2005/08/benjamin-rush-revolutionary-psychology.html

4.    Smith, S.E.. “Pharmaceutical Advertising & Messaging About Mental Illness.” https://lms.wsu.edu/section/content/default.asp?WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSCNT&ENTRY_ID=1E37BB054E3C46C2A62E056B3753C45D

5.    Rosenhan, David. 1973. “Being Sane In Insane Places.” Pp133-137 in Readings In Deviant Behavior, edited by A. Thio, T.C. Calhoun, A. Conyers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

6.    Wyckoff, Whitney. “Despite Deeper Understanding Of Mental Illness, Stigma Still Lingers." https://lms.wsu.edu/section/content/default.asp?WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSCNT&ENTRY_ID=1E37BB054E3C46C2A62E056B3753C45D 

7. Not singing the bi-polar blues blog. "Call Me Crazy Please" posted Sept. 2011. http://notsingingthebipolarblues.blogspot.com/2010/09/call-me-crazy-please.html 

8. This aint livin' blog. "Reclamation: Marginalized bodies, Self Labeling and Empowerment" posted April 2010. http://meloukhia.net/2010/04/reclamation_marginalised_bodies_self_labeling_and_empowerment.html

.

FILM REVIEW: MURDERBALL
1. This is a documentary about the sport of “wheelchair rugby” and the people who play at the international level representing the United States and Canada in the Paralympics. The main thesis of this documentary is that people with physical disabilities specifically people with the label of quadriplegic are more complex than their master status of disabled. They are like everyone else in the sense that they are multidimensional complex individuals that can’t and shouldn’t be boiled down to their most obvious attribute.
2. This thesis was supported by showing players laughing, playing pranks, but also the disappointment felt by the US team when they were defeated by the Canandian team in Sweden by 1 point. The documentary showed the players in their day to day life. The film did not portray the players as if they were beacons of inspiration constantly having to overcome their disability but as ordinary people with varying personalities, likes, dislikes, and life experiences. They showed the Canadian team’s coach, Joe with his family being a father to his son just like any other father would be. His disability didn’t dictate his relationships; it is just a physical characteristic. When talking to U.S. team member, Mark Zupan’s friends from before he became disabled they commented on how Mark was an “asshole” both before and after the car accident in which he gained his label of disabled. This was a great illustration of how a disability doesn’t define a person or their personality.
3. This film ties in really well with the context of the course because in U.S. society people with disabilities especially apparent physical disabilities are seen as deviant from the able-bodied ideal. This becomes their master status and society perpetuates stereotypes that portray them in a uni-demensional way. Also in U.S. society being labeled as disabled means being seen as less-than the ideal and less human. In the U.S. people assume that being able to walk is better than rolling around in a wheelchair.(2) One archetype people with disabilities are expected to fall into is that of the supercrip. The supercrip is objectified to provide inspiration to able-bodied people. The supercrip is seen as overcoming their disability to achieve great things and do exceptional things in spite of their disability and all with a positive attitude. The supercrip is also perceived as wanting to be able-bodied.(1) Mark Zupan helps to breakdown this stereotype. Although he can be seen as inspirational and has become a world renowned wheelchair rugby player he clearly states that he does not want to be “cured” or able-bodied. He is not portrayed as a sweet positive guy with a sunny disposition. Also, the film showed him going into an army hospital talking and interacting with people who had recently become disabled. This shows him as an inspiration to disabled people not an object for able bodied people to find inspiration from.
4. I thought that the fact that in wheelchair rugby players are rated based on their level of disability, and mobility of their extremities is awesome at showing just because not everyone has the same level of ability doesn’t mean that there aren’t ways to really level the playing field instead of perpetuating the social myth of the Level Playing Field. “The myth of the Level Playing Field holds that American society gives everyone – no matter their background or present circumstances – equal chances to succeed…”(1) This is absolutely not the reality hence the title of myth. However, people believe this myth so that when people don’t succeed or aren’t given the chance to succeed it is their own fault not as a result of discrimination and inequality. If as a society we could take into consideration differences and find a way to really level the playing field a lot more people would be able to fulfill their potential. This in turn would benefit the society as a whole.
5. This was an excellent documentary and I thought all points made were relevant and great. However, if I had to choose a least convincing point it would be the addressing of sexuality. I wasn’t offended by it and I thought it was a good way to answer the questions every able-bodied person was wondering but too afraid to ask. Also for some people it can be a big part of their lives and identities. I found this the least relevant because I think that it doesn’t matter if a person is disabled or able-bodied. Sexuality is variable attribute of an individual. It varies from individual to individual. Also, even within the individual sexuality, how they express it, how they feel about it, what they think it is varies throughout their life. Sexuality in the U.S. has been socially constructed to be seen as penetration by a penis. Sexuality and sexual desires can be expressed and met without penetration by a penis in many varying ways. For a more general public that buys into the social construction of sexuality this did answer questions and was probably enlightening.
6. One thing that I thought would be interesting to do further research in was the concept of a devotee. I would suggest a qualitative study to include a survey and also individual interviews. The sample would be people who are currently or have been in a relationship with someone with a disability. I think questions like; if they were in the relationship before the person became disabled in cases where disability was gained after adolescence, have they had multiple relationships with disabled people, before they met their partner had they known anyone with a disability, and their occupation are just a few question that could shed light on motives and mind-set of people who partner with a disabled person. I think that for any long lasting relationship the person would have to not see their partners master status as being disabled.

References
1. Transcontinental Disability Choir: Disability Archetypes -Supercrip - https://lms.wsu.edu/section/content/default.asp?WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSCNT&ENTRY_ID=1E37BB054E3C46C2A62E056B3753C45D
2.What is Abelist Language and Why Should You Care? - https://lms.wsu.edu/section/content/default.asp?WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSCNT&ENTRY_ID=1E37BB054E3C46C2A62E056B3753C45D

Film Review

Film Review: Middle Sexes: Redefining He and She

1.        The main thesis of this film is that first of all gender is a social construction that varies over time, location, different religions and cultures.  Secondly, the American construction of a binary of gender is wrong and marginalizes many people.  This marginalization of people who do not fit into the binary causes much emotional distress as well as violence.  Therefore it needs to be done away with.  I think the article The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female are Not Enough by Fausto-Sterling backs up this thesis very well.

2.       The main arguments in support of this thesis were, when the narrator talked about how biology loves variation but society does not.  Also looking at how different cultures view gender and people who don’t fit into the American binary shows that this binary is not natural and our treatment of those people who do not fit the binary is not natural either.  The interview with Max showed the emotional distress that a person goes through when they are born with ambiguous genitals and there is a rush to assign that person into either male or female.  Also the interview with Calpurinia and the parents of Noah illustrated the violence and fear of violence directed towards people who do not fit in the binary. 

3.       The thesis of the movie fits in with the course because it shows first of all how gender and sexuality is a social construction and this is a sociology class.  Also this film showed how in Western culture specifically American culture people who do not fit into the strict male female categories have been labeled deviant by our society and are treated terribly. 

4.       The most convincing arguments were about the violence faced by those not fitting into the binary and the fear of violence.  It is terrible that people have to fear for their lives and the lives of the people they love just because of others ignorance.  I think the clip we watched in class “Reteaching Gender and Sexuality” supported the argument for change as well.  We need to rethink how we talk about gender and sexuality as well as relearn what American society has told us is natural and not natural.  Then we need to not stop there put pass the message and the lessons learned on so someday hopefully people don’t have to fear for their lives because of who they are. 

Reteaching Gender and Sexuality from Reteaching Gender & Sexuality on Vimeo.
">
5.       I’m not sure there was an argument that I found not convincing or least convincing.  I guess I would have to say that the study conducted in California about homophobia reaffirmed what I already thought so it wasn’t very compelling to me.  However, for some people who think that it is okay to be homophobic this study could be enlightening. 

6.       The point that the way gender is looked and treated varies across different cultures was very interesting.  I would like to study that further to include even more cultures that weren’t discussed in the movie.  I would research this point by first deciding which cultures I wanted to study.  Then I would look at their history around gender beliefs and also their current views and beliefs around gender.  I would also look at how people who fall out of the societies norms are treated. 

Am I Deviant? Of Course!

Whether I am seen as a deviant by society is an interweaving and culmination of race, class, gender, sexuality and criminality among other things.  One can look at each category and be defined as deviant based on how they fit in that category alone or one can be defined as deviant as based on a culmination of deviance in multiple categories. 

              Within these categories society’s standards are white, heterosexual, middle-class, male and non-criminal.  If measuring myself in these standards I would be defined as more deviant than non-deviant.  I identify as white, heterosexual, working-class, female who has been labeled as a criminal.  However, each category cannot be looked at by themselves but rather as intertwined.  Especially when looking at criminality, as noted by Gilfus, in From Victims to Survivors to Offenders: Women’s Routes of Entry and Immmersion into Street Crime, economics, race, and roles of men in women’s lives, have much to do not only with their entry into crime but their role as subordinates within the criminal world for women.  This research definitely supports my experiences in criminality. 

              When looking at my deviance through the lens of criminality I can use two theories to explain my experiences and my entry into the path of deviance.  In some of the ways that I have behaved criminally in the past can be explained by conflict theory (Conflict Theory, Quinney:1975).  The law that was being broken went against the interest of the ruling class.  Through mass media and organized groups the ruling class was able to propagate that the behavior is problematic and therefore should be criminalized to the masses.  The assumption of criminality for engaging in said behavior gains momentum and legislation is then passed.  The ruling class defined the behavior as criminal because it went against their interest.  Because of the power and momentum of the ruling class I am deviant because I have engaged in behavior that was once considered not illegal but is now illegal because it went against the interest of the ruling class.

              Differential association is also a good theory to explain my deviance in criminality (Differential Association Theory, Sutherland & Cressey:1977).  Differential Association theory states that crime is learned through intimate group bonds.  This learning consists of not only the logistics of a certain crime but also the rationalization and justification of criminal behavior.  With differential association theory the excess of pro-criminal behavior over anti-criminal behavior is an important factor as well.  This ties into my experiences on how I learned certain criminal behaviors and justified them as not being so bad.  I learned these attitudes and behaviors from people who were close to me over long periods of time. 

              My deviant act for the week was to dress in an odd way in a public space.  Context is very important when considering this assignment.  What is considered a deviant appearance in one place is not necessarily deviant in another setting.  For my setting I chose the Firstenburg public library on 136th Ave.  I thought this would be a good balance between a conservative stuffy setting and a bizarre eclectic setting.  If I were to go to downtown Portland and dress weird I would not be considered deviant at all.  For my dress I chose to dress in sweat pants, a t-shirt with high heels, a large sun hat with beads and flowers as well as sunglasses.  I thought I looked quite crazy and actually felt uncomfortable at first.  As I walked up and into the library I got a couple of double takes.  I walked past a couple of teens who were snickering.  As I sat down and appeared to be reading and walked around I got a couple of eye-brow raises.  I actually did not get as much attention as I was originally expecting.  I think this is because extreme expressions in dress have become a lot more acceptable culturally.  Starting with Madonna in 1980’s, and the grunge look in the 1990’s.  Of course there is Niki Menage and Lady Gaga of today.  All of these have to come together to make extreme expressions in dress as not really deviant.  If anything I think it is seen as attention seeking behavior and just shrugged off.