All this crazy talk is driving me nuts
There's no denying it. Michele Bachmann, Republican representative for Minnesota's 6th congressional district, is an embarrassment to Minnesotans. Those of us who are not rabid right-wing Christian Republicans intent on banning abortion and equal rights for gay couples have known this for quite some time. Her clingy behavior at Bush's recent State of the Union Address gave the nation a taste of who she is. And her most recent pronouncements about her secret knowledge of Iran annexing the eastern half of Iraq must certainly be leaving some who voted for her wondering about their own judgment. And our safety, so long as she is a government official making decisions on our behalf.
But.
Unless Bachmann makes some announcement that she is bipolar or schizophrenic or has some other mental condition that causes her to behave in ways we all fail to understand, she is not "crazy." Or "wackadoo." Or "nuts." Or "insane." Or riding the "crazy train." (And even then, those terms -- not so helpful.) I'm not thrilled with the oft-used term "wingnut" either, by the way. There are medications for those real problems, which have nothing to do with being a scary and untrustworthy politician. Bachmann just appears to be bigoted, unreliable, inappropriate and really, really incurably weird.
Update: Mark Gisleson of Norwegianity writes on how he sees Bachmann's recent pronouncements as part of her extreme religious agenda. While I surely understand everyone's incredulity with Bachmann, Mark's analysis seems accurate and much more useful to me.
13 comments:
I did not vote for her... I am a Christian, and absolutely do not feel comfortable with some of the ways she chooses to represent faith. It scares me. But you are right that these terms are not helpful.
For other politicians, it's always "idiot"--or "retarded," on the Daily Show--it's such a tedious bit of hyperbole. A politician can be appallingly bad at his job for a lot of reasons, most of them completely unrelated to any difference in intelligence -- focus the snark on those, for a change. It'll make the commentary fresher, and have the added benefit of not reinforcing a stigma about disability.
For sake of argument,
Penny, there's a difference between "analysis" and political junk food. Most political blogs are political junk food. You take it for what it is: political entertainment and to get people excited about politics. Somber analysis is only interesting to very few people, unfortunately. Strong words and hyperbole get people's blood going.
Second. I take issue with not being able to use the word "nuts." I've had serious anxiety attacks. I've masked a massive stutter which very few people know I have. (also a brain disorder having to do with hemisphere interaction) Back when these things were in full force, I was called variations on the word nuts, etc.
HOWEVER, it does not bother me to hear or say the words insane, nuts, wackjob, and especially wingnut. There is a total disconnect between those words in common use and using those words toward the medically insane. If I say, "gosh, she sure is depressed!" That'd be the same exact thing. No one would think twice that "ohmygosh that is offensive to schizophrenic people!" It just does not enter into people's mind, subconscious or otherwise.
There's a give and take in language. There comes a point when the meaning is so far gone, that an idea is so accepted in our culture (so many people are now in counseling, therapy, and are medicated), that words lose their hurtful intent when used in common conversation. This may not be true for other subcultures in which systemic, overt discrimination still takes place.
Thoughts?
yikes - well i misread penny a little. she did make the point that "focus the snark on those."
i guess i would say that smart satire is different than a political pep rally. sometimes language serves different purposes; the former being much more effective but more difficult to write.
anyway, sorry i misread that.
I might be having some language difficulties today, but I take issue with
Unless Bachmann makes some announcement that she is bipolar or schizophrenic or has some other mental condition that causes her to behave in ways we all fail to understand, she is not "crazy."
This suggests that if she did have a mental health impairment, she would be crazy, with everything associated with that word and it would be reasonable to attribute all her unpleasantness and irrationalty to that impairment. Then she could take some pills to make her well?
I think I know your position too well to imagine that's quite what you meant, but that is how it reads to me, today.
However, I also have some sympathy with your anonymous commenter.
Reading the American political blogosphere, I have seen posts which explicitly suggest that members of the opposition view do have mental health impairments - and have a good laugh about it. I have also seen an analysis of racism as a mental health condition. These things are deeply offensive.
However, you use the word "rabid" which refers directly to a medical condition. Rather like "leper" and a few others, this words when used in the West are almost completely disassociated with the medical conditions, which still exist elsewhere of course. They have a different meaning here.
Similarly, I would like to think that words like "crazy" are largely disassociated with mental ill health. After all, these are informal or slang words, not even historical let alone current clinical diagnoses (although I daresay those words; insane, psychotic, etc., are in the mix).
Perhaps we need some of these words to describe situations and behaviours which are beyond our understanding? And cut the final connections between these words and the language we use around mental ill health?
I don't know - like I say, wading through the fog a bit today, so I hope I have not got my wires too entangled.
Thanks for the link, but for whatever it's worth, I used to be a lot more casual with "nuts" and "retarded" etc. Reading The Gimp Parade has sharpened my sensitivities considerably.
And good luck with the Koufaxes. I know a lot of people planning on voting for you!
Thanks, Mark.
Goldfish: I did add that I don't find those terms helpful regardless of their, well, medical accuracy. You're right that mental illnesses are not simply solved by taking medication, and I was hoping someone with more expertise in that area might expound on that a bit here in comments. Besides mental illnesses, there are differences in mental capacity or modes of thinking that are often lumped into ideas of "crazy," and cure is not an appropriate way to look at addressing basic human differences of these kinds either. So, again, my medication remark has limited utility in all kinds of ways.
Locally, it's been overwhelming, the pathologizing of Bachmann's behavior into mental illness, and it angers me both as a political liberal and a disability activist. It diverts from her deeply intolerant, religiously-motivated beliefs and actions. She's absurd and ridiculous, but she really can't and shouldn't be so relentlessly compared to people with actual mental impairments.
On the topic of words like "crazy" being disassociated with actual medical conditions -- I disagree. That could be true in a world where there was less prejudice against people with said conditions, perhaps, but I simply don't believe that the repeated, persistent and overwhelming use of language tying her actions to mental illness in slang has nothing at all to do with people's beliefs about those with true conditions. Or that it doesn't reinforce negative stereotypes.
Anonymous takes issue with "not being able to use the word 'nuts'," and I would note that nobody is setting up rules, just as nobody blogging about the offensive word choices of Joe Biden or George Allen was proposing language laws. It's an analysis of what was said and what it REALLY means -- the subtext, the history.
I'm actually extremely ambivalent about whether or not words such as "lame" or "blind" should be phased out when used as metaphors, since everyone lives in a body and needs to be able to express variations of that human experience. Yet as metaphors, these words obviously use the notion of unacceptable, lamentable physical conditions as descriptors of something else. ("You're so lame!" "The blind leading the blind.") But if it does nothing else, disability theory challenges the idea that being literally lame or blind is an absolutely negative (unacceptable, lamentable) human experience, so not noting and examining the use of ableist language works at cross purposes with disability awareness. Language is where you start.
Hello again,
Thanks for the respectful reply. I especially liked your point about, "It's an analysis of what was said and what it REALLY means -- the subtext, the history." I see your point.
By the way, your blog is very thoughtful, well written and extremely knowledgable on multiple and varying issues. Thanks for adding to the discourse (rather than the junk food :-) ).
This must be a cultural difference, but 'wingnut' refers to a person with big ears in my country. So Bush would be a wingnut, but Thatcher wouldn't have been.
Of course, we may have a wee bit of a language barrier between ourselves so the use and cultural context of certain words may vary quite a bit - like our use of gimp and crip respectively, for example.
I'm completely in agreement with you on the importance of language and the social and intellectual error of pathologising behaviour and opinions we dislike.
But perhaps my experience of words like "crazy" is quite different. People in love say they are crazy about each other, people refer to crazy prices in the shops, etc.. I don't hear people with mental ill health being described as "crazy" - which was why I found your wording surprising.
Whereas a word like "psychotic"... psychosis remains a specific clinical term, which is not necessarily characterised by aggression or even self-endangering behaviour. And yet psychotic is informally used to suggest a truly monstrous person.
Similarly with maniac - someone experiencing mania. Mania rarely includes strong aggressive behaviour; a person in a manic state is more likely to buy fifty pairs of shoes than to hurt anyone else. I could go on.
However, like I say, could be an instant where we're separated by a common language and all that. ;-)
I hear people who have mental disorders referred to as being crazy frequently. And, just because some people use "crazy" in ways dissociated from mental illness, that doesn't make it right.
"Crazy" gets used to describe someone behaving awfully, and then people get that look on their faces when I say that I have a mental illness. The two are completely bound up in each other for me.
This must be a cultural difference, but 'wingnut' refers to a person with big ears in my country.
Yep, that would be a cultural difference then, because while I believe it has a variety of meanings, "wingnut" is used throughout American liberal bloglandia to refer to right-wing political conservatives. Short for "right-wing nut," maybe.
Observe: http://www.global-metals.com/images/wingnut.jpg
THAT is a wingnut. It holds the other screws IN PLACE. So, you can have left or right wingnuts. :)
Okay, maybe a little too Asperger's? But that's how I use the phrase. :p
Post a Comment