One of the first things I learned about Bipolar Disorder is that many people who have it can be pretty touchy.
They'll nicely tell you that there is a distinction between HAVING Bipolar and BEING Bipolar. They HAVE Bipolar, they are NOT Bipolar.
They would take exception to the very name of this blog for example, citing that it indicates my son IS Bipolar, where they would rather I refer to my son as HAVING Bipolar.
I get the distinction.
Just like I HAVE Glaucoma, I'm NOT Glaucoma.
While some people who have Bipolar can get almost militant about this distinction, I've made it pretty apparent right up there in the title of my blog, that I'm not gonna spend a lot of energy worrying about the semantics of all this. Hell, I KNOW the difference between there, their and they're, yet I often times, in my stream of conscience writing, grab the wrong one of them from my brain and throw it on the page. AND DON'T CATCH IT WHEN I'M EDITING!
What it all comes down to is there is such a stigma attached to mental illness and people who suffer with mental illness have the distinct pleasure of having to also suffer with the stigma connected with it. They don't want to be defined by their disorder. I don't want my son to be defined by his disorder, but I think there are much better and more powerful ways to reverse the stigma of mental illness than to get all pissy about semantics.
Since my son's diagnosis, I've learned more than I ever wanted to know about mental illness, bipolar for the most part, and I've developed a HUGE amount of respect for the people who suffer with it. I mean NO disrespect by the title of my blog, or how I might phrase a sentence.
What I hope to accomplish by maintaining this blog is to chronicle our journey and hopefully help others who are navigating through the maze of Bipolar. And I hope that in some small ways I can help lift the stigma attached to Bipolar, but I don't believe for a second that the stigma is worsened by simple semantics, there are much bigger issues at play.
5 comments:
Well, as someone who passionately points out when people are engaging in (pointless) semantical gymnastics, I agree.
I think maybe the 'problem' is that the original phrase was 'manic-depressive'. And that for me is a suitable term, in itself. "He's a manic-depressive." (Clearly this does not refer to HAVING 'manic-depression'.)
And so when 'bipolar' replaced 'manic-depression', in a society that prefers to refer to the individual and not the cause or ailment (much easier to both laud as well as decry) it's only natural that this 'mislabelling' occurred.
I also agree with what you say regarding the effects of stigma; the ailment itself as well as the HAVING the ailment (the stigma). Something I've long referred to as 'double-damning'.
Or, as is germane to this subject, "I'm doubled-damned', not 'I have double-damning."
LOL
Bi Polar sounds so much more medical. I have manic-depression--mildly--same thing, just the way it was diagnosed to me way back in the '70's. I think I like manic-depression better 'cause that is the way I get. Sometimes I am manic and going to move to another State because that seems the right thing to do and other times, I am depressed and the very thought of moving away scares me to pieces. I feel empathy for the people that have to live with us, no matter what title is put on our mental illness.
Jude;
The bottom-line is, we each have the right to be called what we prefer. A 'manic-depressive', having manic-depression, a 'bipolar'...
...a craftsman, a firefighter, an actor, an actress, whatever.
There is a sort of different connotation with 'bipolar', isn't there? An energy? A state of 'swinging back and forth'? Like a pendulum? I can understand why it might not be someone's choice of descriptive.
As for the people who live with those having bipolar/being manic-depressive... Well, we don't choose who we love, do we? And I can imagine the trials and tribulations of loving someone with this mood disorder, witnessing it all, what this must be like. The journey for the observer is different than for the one had by the person with the disorder...but both are trying in their own ways.
i am bipolar, i have bipolar disorder. i also have a shift key that sticks thus the e.e.cumming imitation. anyway, semantics, ye. i am not picky. what do you call a diabetic? someone who has diabetes. bipolar...manicdepression...whatever.
the stigma is, in my experience, more in the mind of the person who has it than in the general public. there are assholes in the world who'll make it hard, but most people, they already know someone with it and are suprisingly sympathetic. tho to be honest, for a long time i felt like i had a blinking red light on my forehead and everyone knew, saw it, and wanted to avoid me. the reality wasn't anything like that tho. it's just hard to get over the knowledge that you'd acted nuts for a while and people might avoid you because of it.
It is more for the person with bipolar's sake, so they don't feel like they are defined by being bipolar. It makes it sound like something is wrong with them. Yes to the outsider who doesn't have a problem with bipolar it isn't a problem, but when you have it and you hear people go ooh he's bipolar and you hear the disdain in that other person's voice it can make you feel bad for having it.
A simple semantic distinction helps the person with bipolar put distance between themselves and the disease.
www.findingonespath.com
Post a Comment