This was everything I wanted in an answer to this question. I was having a conversation with my dad about politics and leadership in television and I mentioned you for how you're able to deconstruct fictional leaders to find the core of their real world-equivalent values. We talked about BSG and Game of Thrones (my original take when I first read the books maybe fifteen years ago was that it took the War of the Roses and amped it up +100000, and I think I stand by that because Westeros remains such a feudal system of governance - the show sometimes touches on this when it mentions the common people who are fighting simply because they live in a certain territory, rather than for reasons of conviction, but we all would rather stare at the high people in pretty costumes so stories about common people aren't a priority).
Anyway, I have loved your analysis and everyone's comments on the subject. I've always been partial to TR because he seemed to have a tongue-in-cheek sense of humor (the "speak softly" line and calling the Spanish-American War in Cuba a "merry little war" amuse me); he was an environmentalist before it was cool, and I was in the play Arsenic and Old Lace in high school and there's a character who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt, so there are sentimental reasons there, too. Anyway, I like the analysis of Jed being both related to FDR and TR, and I had never thought about privacy issues in terms of leaders, but that stigma article was really fascinating, both in the context of FDR having a discredited stigma vs. Roslin's discreditable stigma, but also as a person with a discreditable stigma myself.
In my professional academic life I need to be very careful how much I disclose to certain people in authority who could limit my opportunities if they think I "can't handle it." At the same time accommodations do need to be made, so explaining the reasons for accommodations while trying to remain vague on the specifics is something I've always had trouble with. If it were up to me I would be completely out about having a mental illness in an effort to ease the stigma, but I have had situations where I wasn't given an opportunity because of health-related reasons. It's difficult because on top of the already tough mental illness situations I have to deal with, I also have to worry about how others view me because of it--am I a survivor who is able to overcome adversity, or am I someone who people should be wary of? I've already felt like I've "let people down" this past semester - I received a scholarship intended for students applying to Ph.D. programs but I decided to get a Master's first, I've been given a ton of grant funding through my research program with the intention of beefing up my CV for grad school, and I may end up deferring or taking a year off before I continue my education. I want people who invest in me make a profit on their investment (this analogy isn't the best), but I always have to worry if I'm "good enough" or if they're losing money (?) on their investment.
The discredited/discreditable issue is one of those things that is really influential in how people live, but for numerous reasons does not pass muster in terms of Social Justice (TM) trendiness. Since you have access to academic resources, actually, it might be pretty easy for you to track down the real-deal book (Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity by Erving Goffman), which, while dated in its examples and not without limitations in some of its theory, is a relatively short but highly edifying read.
But yes, the disclosure decision is so complicated. For me it almost seems to get more so with time, as I rack up experiences with having disclosed and also come to a better understanding of many of the experiences I had pre-diagnosis (ie, when formal disclosure was impossible). It hasn't discernibly changed my stance on individual privacy rights, but this arc has definitely become more personal in some ways.
Anyway, I have loved your analysis and everyone's comments on the subject. I've always been partial to TR because he seemed to have a tongue-in-cheek sense of humor (the "speak softly" line and calling the Spanish-American War in Cuba a "merry little war" amuse me); he was an environmentalist before it was cool, and I was in the play Arsenic and Old Lace in high school and there's a character who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt, so there are sentimental reasons there, too. Anyway, I like the analysis of Jed being both related to FDR and TR, and I had never thought about privacy issues in terms of leaders, but that stigma article was really fascinating, both in the context of FDR having a discredited stigma vs. Roslin's discreditable stigma, but also as a person with a discreditable stigma myself.
In my professional academic life I need to be very careful how much I disclose to certain people in authority who could limit my opportunities if they think I "can't handle it." At the same time accommodations do need to be made, so explaining the reasons for accommodations while trying to remain vague on the specifics is something I've always had trouble with. If it were up to me I would be completely out about having a mental illness in an effort to ease the stigma, but I have had situations where I wasn't given an opportunity because of health-related reasons. It's difficult because on top of the already tough mental illness situations I have to deal with, I also have to worry about how others view me because of it--am I a survivor who is able to overcome adversity, or am I someone who people should be wary of? I've already felt like I've "let people down" this past semester - I received a scholarship intended for students applying to Ph.D. programs but I decided to get a Master's first, I've been given a ton of grant funding through my research program with the intention of beefing up my CV for grad school, and I may end up deferring or taking a year off before I continue my education. I want people who invest in me make a profit on their investment (this analogy isn't the best), but I always have to worry if I'm "good enough" or if they're losing money (?) on their investment.
So yeah. Loved this.
Reply
The discredited/discreditable issue is one of those things that is really influential in how people live, but for numerous reasons does not pass muster in terms of Social Justice (TM) trendiness. Since you have access to academic resources, actually, it might be pretty easy for you to track down the real-deal book (Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity by Erving Goffman), which, while dated in its examples and not without limitations in some of its theory, is a relatively short but highly edifying read.
But yes, the disclosure decision is so complicated. For me it almost seems to get more so with time, as I rack up experiences with having disclosed and also come to a better understanding of many of the experiences I had pre-diagnosis (ie, when formal disclosure was impossible). It hasn't discernibly changed my stance on individual privacy rights, but this arc has definitely become more personal in some ways.
Reply
Leave a comment