On diagnosis | on the natural flow of things (2/2)
1. The topic of this text
In the previous text with this same title, I wrote – through the prism of my personal experience and (i.e.) through what I call acting “on the natural course of things” – about the different ways in which a person can face his *own* diagnosis. In this text, on the other hand, looking through that same prism, I pay attention to some of the terminology used when talking about diagnosis and disability, but this time with an emphasis on only some of the aspects of the attitude that a person (with or without a diagnosis) may have towards *other* persons with a diagnosis, atypicality or disability.
2. The diagnosis of others and “despondency”
Considering the marvelous complexity of the human soul and the unknowable, unpredictable impulses that often move it, the sole attempt to discern some kind of pattern in what our reactions to other people’s diagnoses can be, seems grotesque. The nature of our feelings and their intensity depend above all on what our experience is like, what we have witnessed in terms of diagnoses and health conditions. In other words, our reactions depend on what we empathize* with, or what personal patterns for emulation and perpetuation we have acquired. However, our experiences, acquired both by introspection and by observing the world around us, show us that we usually react to other people’s diagnoses (especially if the affected person is a close one) – by inertia, and because of our relatively low (both personal and collective) level of awareness – with some form of despondency: not only with worry, but also with fear, with sadness, and even with despair. A person usually strives to provide stability and security to his everyday life, and security above all means achieving a certain level of “predictability”: while diagnosis means “a turn”, a step into uncertainty, getting out of the familiar, warm bed of commotion: and it seems logical for this to (also) result in some sort of despondency.
When talking about “despondency” as a reaction, it is worth first of all to be aware of two seemingly opposite types of this feeling. On the one hand are our close ones whose care (or rather whose *injury*, due to the activity of their personal “pain body”, as Eckhart Toll calls it) is more of a toxicity, leaving little room for curiosity, love and faith in life and in healing. On the other hand, there are those who, too worried about their own well-being, are afraid of the possible “negative energy” that can envelop the person affected by the diagnosis, and therefore distance themselves from him/her (sometimes uncritically guided by the new age principle “positive vibes only”).
There will probably always be a need to be aware of the despondency fueled by simple ignorance: the despondency of those who experience an unreasonable fear of someone else’s diagnosis, which is seen as a risk, a danger of something “contagious”, something that simply falls out of the “norm”, and as such, “abnormal”, is best avoided (or distanced, moved aside, abolished: kept as far as possible from the comfort and the predictability of “normal” living). Fear of unpredictability means fear of diversity. Diversity, on the other hand, proves to be life in its purest form.
A term that applies to this discourse is “normates”: individuals who, led by delusion, allow themselves to judge what is “normal” and what is not (by inertia, out of laziness of spirit, in defense of predictability and of commotion) determining the limits of the “acceptable”, thus sacrificing (discriminating against, hurting) the differences and rejecting the precious experiences that they very often bring with them. The term “normate” was coined in 1997 by Rosemary Garland-Thomson – a professor, bioethicist and leading thinker in the field of disability studies.
2. The diagnosis of others and “pride”
Considering that “despondency” and “pride” are “two sides of the same coin”, the feeling of despondency, or fear of the diagnosis (disability/atypicality) of others can momentarily manifest itself as a form of “pride”: it is the same repulsion, with the difference that repulsion as “despondency” appears as *fear* of the unknown, whereas repulsion as “pride” towards someone else’s diagnosis can show various forms of conscious or unconscious *arrogance*: pity, impatience, and even aggressiveness. In fact, those reactions can also be seen as primitive responses to the primitive feeling of being “threatened” by who is different, regardless of whether the “difference” comes in the form of diagnosis, disability, or atypicality.
The attitude of “pride” towards the diagnoses of others is most quickly perceived if we look at the already surpassed (in theory) “medical model” of understanding disability (as opposed to the model of social constructivism). In short: the medical model sees the damaged body as something that needs to be “repaired”, or somehow adapted to the world of “normal” people. Those guided by the medical model sought (and still strive, in places where the medical model still persists) to heal individual bodies with special treatments, *isolating* the patients. And it is precisely this isolation, this denial of togetherness and inclusion, that is the place where “pride” is most evident in relation to someone else’s diagnosis/disability. In contrast to the medical model, the constructive model (social constructivism) strives for people to *adjust the environment* to the needs of damaged bodies and persons with atypicality, in order for everyone to be included.
In the context of the diagnosis of others and “pride”, what can be impressive is the attitude of the medical personnel themselves: they sometimes choose to behave “autocratically”, i.e. with “pride” towards the patient: it happens that the patient is placed in the position of a completely subordinate “object”, who must unquestioningly accept the demands and the expectations of the staff. The forms of “pride” of the medical staff can be of such proportions that some of the doctors or nurses perceive the relationship with the patients as a “battle”, as a confrontation, as an antagonism where each strives to prevail, to bypass or overcome in some way the “danger” that is the other.
“Pride” can take many forms but, when talking about the diagnosis, it seems especially important to talk about *pity*, as one of the most harmful attitudes a person can have towards another person (with or without a diagnosis). A person may find himself in a position to face a challenge (diagnosis or something else), but feeling pity for him/her can represent either delusion and emotional immaturity, or a conscious attempt to humiliate, which is a form of aggression. Pity is a pure form of “pride” because it drives people apart, not closer to each other. By pitying, we make a clear distinction between us and the one we pity, we erect a wall, position ourselves at a clear distance. Therefore, if our very *feeling* of pity indicates pride and delusion, then our every *statement* that we feel pity for someone signifies the triumph of the ego, the blindness of the spirit, the absence of love and of faith. Pity is harmful in other ways as well: once someone tells someone else that they feel pity or pity for a third party, the first person actually humiliates the third person and influences the second person to abandon faith and adopt the same degrading attitude.
Another unconscious form of “pride” is the “infantilization” of people with a diagnosis or with a disability: often out of “clumsy mercy” (or out of pity) a person affected by a diagnosis/disability/… can be treated as a “child” when someone addresses him, thereby unintentionally humiliating that person. At the same time, this puts an emphasis on vulnerability, and the person with a diagnosis/disability/… is victimized.
3. The diagnosis of others “on the natural flow of things”
Pity may seem “natural” to many, but that’s because the line between pity and *mercy* is usually thin (and invisible). Our consciousness is susceptible to different influences at every moment, so many who feel mercy in themselves can “slip” into pity in a moment of despondency. But a truly conscious person can only feel mercy: understanding, acceptance, love and above all – faith. The feeling of mercy is an unmistakable indicator of a sober perception of things, and it contains acceptance and love for the other, and above all, faith in his well-being and in the possibilities open to him/her/, possibilities that most of the time our limited minds cannot even imagine. Gabor Mate, a global icon in the field of psychology, distinguishes five levels of compassion*. After “ordinary human compassion” and “curiosity as compassion”, Mate points out “compassion of recognition” as the third. According to Gabor Mate, it is the empathy that comes with the conscious realization that essentially, “there’s nothing about anybody else that isn’t in me as well”, so “we’re all just like the rest of us”. That recognition of what is “common” is an entry into consciousness and deep understanding, it is a “merging” with “oneness” (awareness of togetherness), and an anteroom and entrance into the “divine” nature of man, which in Hinduism is distilled into the greeting “namaste”: “the divine in me bows to (recognizes, greets) the divine in you”. Recognizing the other as equal to oneself is the closest to “oneness”, and the compassion that arises in that moment is precisely empathizing with the grace (the mercy) that is recognized in the other. Therefore, exactly mercy is the feeling that most testifies to what is called the divine nature of man, that is, to the human consciousness which is on the limit of going “outside of itself” and in that way, in “ecstasy”, becoming part of something greater than itself, part of “Being” (in Eckhart Tolle’s words), part of “Universal Consciousness”, part of the ineffable “oneness”.
Finally, the core of the main prayers of the largest monotheistic religions is exactly that, mercy. Mercy appears as the essential characteristic and the greatest strength of God (and therefore of the human being).
Above in this text it is written that, in contrast to pity, which alienates due to the absence of love, it is mercy that signifies recognizing oneself with the other, and above all faith in his well-being and in the “possibilities open to him”. It is useful to return to this point because the word “possibilities” is of key importance here: after “ordinary compassion” (1), “compassion of curiosity” (2), “compassion of recognition” (3), and after “compassion of truth” (4), as the highest, fifth degree of compassion Mate indicates “compassion of possibility” (5). So, the recognition of the other’s possibilities and the faith that one nurtires in them, i.e. the leveling of one’s own feeling (faith, joy…) with the feeling that occurs with the perception of the other’s possibilities, turns out to be the ultimate form of emotional connection between people, the ultimate form of celebration of togetherness – which is the true state of human existence.
Translated into the language of the subject of this text, “togetherness” means “inclusion.”
A visual representation of inclusion, integration, segregation and exclusion.
4. Inclusion (“the natural flow of things”)
According to pedagogists, “the organized upbringing and education of children with special needs throughout history moves from segregation, through integration to inclusion.” That is, in the past exclusion prevailed, and then it gradually moved to segregation and integration, so that today we are working on the final challenge, that is, on inclusion, on authentic togetherness. It is certain that our state system hardly succeeds in putting this theory into practice, that is, it finds it hard to provide inclusive education to a large number of children with special needs. Regardless, this image above, taken from an inclusive education textbook, indicates four levels of awareness one can have (exclusion, segregation, integration, inclusion) not only in relation to the education of children with special needs, but also in the attitude towards all different social groups in a community.
People with a diagnosis (disability, atypicality…) are often excluded from the system and from the rights and the services that they have right to, and this is regularly due to one or another form of personal or systemic “despondency” or “pride”: starting from the simple fear of contagion that an ignorant person may have, down to the absence of ramps in order to save more (building) space that would generate more profit. But on the other hand, people with a diagnosis (disability, atypicality…) can be (and often are) understood, recognized with grace (and not with “charity” and pity), bravely and with love and trust. In this manner, they can be (and are) joyously involved in social life and in education. Ultimately, people with a diagnosis (disability/atypicality…) can be (and are) valued for their experiences, which can often be very different and rarer than that of people with typical growth and development.
When it comes to the attitude towards people with a diagnosis, disability or atypicality, people with typical development and physicality usually act – depending on their level of consciousness – between these two extremes: from (unintentional, unconscious) “pride/despondency” all the way to the conscious “natural” flow of things. In the end, one gets the impression that we are all in our own way, each through our personal story, called to realize and liberate our own nature, and to overcome again and again the states of inertia, or “the layered fat of our comfort and insensitivity when it comes to others”**, by accepting and applying inclusion – on multiple levels, in multiple environments – which is proving to be one of our key challenges in general.
* “Empathy” usually refers to a
positive feeling of love, non-judgment, acceptance and support for another. The
word “compassion”, in turn, is an expanded form of with the word
“passion”, which means “to suffer”. In this text, however, the words
“compassion” and “empathy” are “neutral” words,
without emotional charge and “without color”, like “empty
glasses” that can be filled with different contents. In other words, if
“compassion” (the word used by Gabor Mate) means “to suffer
with”, in this text “compassion” simply means “sharing
someone else’s feeling” (regardless of what the feeling may be).
** “the layered fat of our comfort and
insensitivity when it comes to others” – an expression of Aco Šopov, from
an interview published under the title “Satirical Verses
Jus-universum”, Večer, on 03.12.1967; taken from acosopov.com; (i.e. from
a FB post shared on the profile of I. Š. (Ivan Kalendar) on 21.12.2023, 9:00).
Used literature:
– “Disability” (collection of texts about disabled bodies)”, Templum, Skopje, 2021
– “Margina No. 95 – Disability” Templum, Skopje, 2023
– “Fundamentals of inclusive education”, Sonja Petrovska, Jadranka Runčeva, UDG, Štip, 2019