Diagnosis

An Article:
http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/showarticle.php?articleid=51983

The Reply:
http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/showarticle.php?articleid=52004

(I wrote one of these.)

Otherwise...

I get frustrated by something. (Many people do.) Outside the scope of the letter I wrote, though it may be a mutual symptom.

There is a tendency, when a perplexing literary or historical figure is encountered, to diagnose them with some psychosis or other malady that rationally explains their problem as being in their mind, whether having initial cause elsewhere or not.

I have a few examples.

1. Margery Kempe. She had a book written. The Book of Margery Kempe. (Original titles in 1400, yes?) Anyway, this is a biography of sorts. She lives out her life for a while, marries, has kids... and starts having a religious transformation. It's gradual, and she turns away from it for a while thinking herself bereft from salvation, but Jesus finally appears to her and becomes her special vision-pal. She ends up crying a lot in public, constantly bringing up religion to others, pleading to not couple with her husband (he legally could anyway; it is 1400), and so on. Some people think this is extremely devout behavior and encourage it. Others are annoyed by it and scorn her.

Now, there are many fascinating points of exploration here, from the social response to the various gifts she receives from Jesus, to the way she and God become a marriage that trumps the earthly one she has. The way she responds to pilgrimage. The way she's nearly burned at the stake for teaching others religion (outside priestly authority, AND as a woman). But no. She's a hysteric. She's bipolar. Depressed. Pick your ailment, she has it.

She would not have been viewed as sick in her own time. People take her claims of visions and divine insight seriously, whether they believe them to be truth or willful lying. If she is diagnosed, there is no worthwhile meaning in it for the rest of the story. If anything, it detracts from the meaning, because who can try to find meaning in "crazy"? Not me.

2. We had to read "Circumstances are Destiny" by ... I think, Brakehill? Anyway, this is a biography of a woman named Celestia Rice Colby, born in the 1830s and living in Ohio. She loses her mother very young, grows up, goes to an upper school for boys and girls (unusual then), coms home, gets married, and has kids. At first she's happy doing the traditional thing, but increasingly she gets tired of it. She is disillusioned from orthodox religion, from the false platitudes of her neighbors, from the frequent absences of her husband and the pressures of keeping up a cheese-making business and her domestic housework. Through all this, she longs for some intellectual companionship, for which her occasional visiting friends and family, occasionally heard lectures, essay writing, and her avidly enjoyed books give no solace. (Jumbled list, I know.) All of this is detailed in a diary, which is why there's such a personal insight to her feelings. Finally she writes less and less, appearing to be in such a lull that only occasional mentions of her children and other circumstances lull her out of it. After the Civil War and increasingly writing on women's issues, she stops diary writing altogether. While it appears she gains a moderate piece of happiness after her husband dies or leaves her (the history is unclear), we still had to read through 200 pages of emotion-laden text that flowed slow as the Mississippi.

The conclusion from a few people today? She's depressed. Again, bipolar. What have you. And, okay, I think depressed is a fairly good way of describing her, but... that's obvious! There's nothing else to say about her? Nothing? Maybe at least the reasons she's depressed, about how she's trying to fit into a gender role that demands her silence but she wants to speak at the same time? About having a husband that shares her opinion on issues of abolition and such but who doesn't help with the housework? And weren't there many joys in her life besides? (It wasn't all bad, though the author seemed to focus on those bad points more.) If anything the biography showed that it was much more complicated than simply adhering to True Womanhood or not adhering to it, that it was a part of her, but at the same time she was dissatisfied with some parts of it... and as her children noted, she always appeared kind and encouraging to them. This was a multilayered woman, this Colby... not just a medical diagnosis.

_______________

Whenever anyone brings up such a thing, unless it can be developed further, it is just a side point. Perhaps intriguing, but not relevant. It's a shortcut, and by it, one doesn't have to think about the person or the text in a serious way. It is like looking at a piece of art and saying, "Medieval depiction of Jesus! Moving on!" It's a label, at the precise moment we're trying to peel off the labels and, perhaps with their help, perhaps not, see what's going on without the sticky bits.

And that is one thing that general education courses try to do. Rather than just having the model of matriarchal lineage, we can hopefully learn to apply it in discussion, and then say, "Well, this means for the society... dadada." It's not the only thing, certainly, or many would be an enourmous failure.

And I'm not saying that our discussions should always be complete explanations of our positions. Gah, no. Or that all of our discussions should be intellectual, even. Witty, maybe. ^_~ But no. People receiving a college education should be capable of that, though. As Mom pointed out (and I agree), I want my doctor, my lawyer, my insurance agent ... if I ever have to work with them on a personal basis, I want to know that such a conversation can be had without alienating them. I want to know that they are more than "doctor" and more than late-night TV. Perhaps they'll have an interesting hobby and such, which is always nice, but they should have an educated background, just in case... what? We actually have a discussion on something? Never know. ^_~