The Commodification of Emotional Care

There is something that has been bothering me for a long time, and that is the commodification of "care" in the form of therapy. There are some things that are sacred and emotional well-being is one of it. Therefore, I find myself increasingly bothered by the economy of "care" - from the commodification of counselling sessions, to the market of self-help books and it even extends to paying psychologists thousands for a session of therapy.

I am not denouncing that it is therefore not important to seek help when one really needs it. Neither am I proclaiming that all counsellors and psychologists are crooks. In fact, some counsellors and psychologists can bring insight to a person's darkest moments - that was how the discipline started in the first place.

However I have huge issues with people charging money for it. It almost seems like seeing a doctor - where one pays for effect. Emotions are not illness to be treated, nor sickness to be cured. They are also not puzzles to be sorted or problems to be solved. They are there because they point towards something else that affects us, and also they indicate a reaction with ourselves that result in the emotion of stress, or elation or despair. When one pays for counselling or therapy, what are we really "buying"? Are we buying hope that they can solve our problems through some previously undiscovered method?

I am afraid that we are becoming caught up with the pursuit of happiness. That being happy is the only thing and rightful thing to pursue. There is not joy without pain, and there is no appreciation of elation without a trial of tribulations. If we aim to seek to be positive, happy, and "bright" all the time, and make that it is the only thing that matters, it is hard to also experience the other "flavours" of life that bring meaning. A meaningful life does not necessarily indicate a happy life, and happiness has no value without the meanings that make it precious. Buying therapy is a source of instant gratification, wanting the result more than the process itself. It is complicated by the fact that therapy takes a long time and a person can also become reliant to it. Like an addict who requires the need to gives himself/herself the shot every time the withdrawal symptoms come. So we end up pouring millions of dollars into an economy of the pursuit of wanting to be "happy". It is an expensive addiction.

I am writing in protest of the attitude to be "happy at all costs". There is a price to happiness and we must be willing to pay that price to be happy. There are in fact happiness in the simple things, and we find greater crests of joy for every mountain we climb. Each challenge and "depression" brings a greater high. Therefore, to be REALLY happy, perhaps you need to come down to a low first. We have friends and family who will always be there to walk with us. It is also interesting that some counsellors and psychologists become our friends, and that's when they start to work their therapeutic magic. If therapists aim to only heal you because you pay, then paradoxically, these people are the least equipped to bring you to where you would like to be. These people do not seek payment, nor aim to keep you in sessions longer to increase their profit margin. They are there out of respect and care for your being. Your value is more than the dollars put into therapy, it is the value of life itself. They treasure you for the joys and pains that you bring them. So instead of pushing them away, perhaps your path to happiness is simply, to open up your heart and arms.

After all, a worry shared is a worry halved, but happiness shared is doubled. Talking to more people brings perspective, and sometimes that is really the only thing you need to lead the way out of darkness.

Why I do not take part in Facebook thread "debates" anymore

I consider myself an intense Facebook user. My homepage is Facebook and I turn to it when I am bored in the train. It's a good platform for recording our "everyday" and keeping in touch with friends. Once in a so-often while, a juicy debate pops up. It is usually about a controversial topic i.e. should women be blamed for rape if they dress like a slut? or someone would post an alternative viewpoint about the 6.9 million white paper and everyone would jump on the bandwagon to offer their views etc.

I used to jump on such topics with fervour and the rush of replying and "engaging" with strangers in the public is admittedly very invigorating. It makes one feel like you're thinking, and really honing your argumentative skills. It feels better than any tutorial or debate in class, the awesome feeling of looking for like-minded individuals is far beyond any thing you've known. That is after all, the power of social media isn't it?

However, as much as engaging with debates is all of the above, especially when it culminates to finding like-minded individuals to continue the debate over coffee in person. It also has a dark side.

Well, for starters, I am a great believer of energy. What I mean is that the initial rush you feel about something strongly, the passion is something that drives one person to do something. With Facebook, this reaction you get from say, the 6.9 million White Paper, is completely justified and real. However, when you find yourself engaging in debates all the time, getting angry and then expending that energy on a thread of comments, something is amiss there. This is because when we comment on a threat or engage in a debate on Facebook, it gives the illusion that we are doing something with our passions. When in reality, if one takes a look at it in the long term, there really is not productivity achieved except to make you an even angrier person. Why not instead, the time taken to type the well-thought out comment, to then put it in a proposal and try to actually gather some real action there? The answer is perhaps embarrassingly simple, it's far easier to pretend we've contributed our views via an online platform, than to hash out the difficult web of actually making a difference.


Secondly, facebook has a very fast expiry date. Past debates run out of steam very fast simply by the fact that the threads themselves run to the bottom of the list in the matter of days, or hours. Very good threads or comments are "lost" in cyberspace unless one actually screen-shot or keeps detailed records of these views. Why invest close to half an hour to type a good essay only to have it lost in cyberspace in a matter of days. Going back to my previous point, wouldn't it be more sensible to expend that time and energy into trying to make actual difference? Try to talk to your MP, get involved, so research - these actions activate actors who can then truly make material differences.

Lastly, there are honestly, too many idiots out there and not to mention trollers. Some people take the thread too seriously, forgetting that this is after all Facebook. People do not take it as seriously as other outlets of communication. It is different from engaging someone in person. When you debate with someone, the other senses create a far stronger impression than a visual facebook thread ever would. My best memories of conversation happen in real places and the face-to-face communication creates vested interest. There is the unwritten social code of respect, of understanding and decorum. It curbs radicals and trollers. It curbs the worst of irresponsibilities found on online. Your views are important to me (no matter how senseless and idiotic because if you learn from the best, you learn very little), and I want to give you my full attention.

I do not for one, dispute the power of social media - it has brought to light several issues and important information which would have not seen the light otherwise. What I am insisting, that we take it beyond the online platform to translate it to actual action. Take it as a means to meet common-minded people, and perhaps set up a date and decide what you can actually do about it.

Let's go get coffee, and hold discourse with thee.

The question of authorship

Duchamp made a very salient point about the "Fountain" - namely, using a ready-made urinal, inverting it and painting R MUTT to sign-off. No part of it was original. Duchamp didn't invent the porcelain that went into the making of the urinal, neither did he invent the concept/construction of the object in question. He was accredited the authorship because he has simply taken the bold step to place a banal object in the esteemed location of a contemporary art museum.

Of course, he subsequently was associated with this (in)famous "art" piece due to the controversy made.

I was reading an article on Realism, critical realism to be exact. Before philosophy scares you away from this blog, please be rest assured that I intend to write something rather lay.

At the end of the article, the author thanked a list of people who helped shape his ideas, and he even credited a point to a colleague during the review. In academia, it is very much a paradox, where there such pressures are put on individuals to produce brilliant works to publish, and yet, work in editorial teams to peer-review, critique. We have meetings and seminars where we share (or more commonly, attack) with each other. We formulate ideas by cross-pollination. So why is the credit still individually award?

It's same throughout really, in most cases, people work in teams and create synthesis (or disynthesis?). No one's ideas are really their own and the assemblage of ideas can happen by chance or even by circumstances. It can be reduced to being in the right place at the right time, the interplay of being part of the right institution and you exercising a choice that simply fits into that structure. It can even be random. I must admit, I had this idea because I was reading Sayer's article on Critical Realism for Geography and Dyck/Kearn's book chapter for on Gidden's theory of Structuration. The most unlikely of connections and possibly by sheer SHEER chance...did I write this blog post? Most certainly. Did I author it? I would say there are roads that motivated me to write, and the assemblage of ideas came from me...I willed it to happen. However, I hesitate to claim true authorship.

It is our ego that drives us to claim credit for our work. Clearly in Duchamp's case, he was credited because his name created a locus of discussion. We tend to associate with the person when we're trying to understand motives - "Why did he chose a urinal as a sculpture?". This is because only people can have will - conscious choices. However, my point is that that's not all there is to it, because there are also other random circumstances that can take part. Duchamp owes as much credit, as the curator who permitted his work to be displayed. Someone must have sold the urinal to this insane dude.

The key here is really simply. Authorship, like Duchamp's signage of "R MUTT" is simply an act of claim. Whilst none of the words I used were invented by you (English is not invented by a sole person), Blogger.com wasn't a website I set up, and neither references were created by me. I u claim these ideas as my choices. It is my individual will that underpins the end assemblage displayed for all to see.

It doesn't matter if my choices were random (spur of insanity) or calculated (deeply analysed, researched before writing). The event itself justifies my authorship. I claim therefore it is.

Charity: Are you a lazy giver?

Students from most secondary schools have filled the last 2 saturdays to ask the public to give back to the community. Holding tin cans and "flag" stickers, they bear the symbols of Singaporean charitable attitude. I read somewhere before, that Singaporeans have the highest rate of giving. I've always passed the chance to buy tissue, buy "flags", give my change to passing musicians (unless they are really good) etc. Some might call me Mrs Scrooge and hurl eggs for my miser attitudes.

I have always held the view that anyone and everyone can perform charitable acts like dropping change in a tin can, or help out an old man selling tissue papers. As much as these little gestures matter, and they might temporarily help the demise of those less fortunate, I much prefer to engage in long term sustainable charitable causes. Such charity depends largely on mass numbers and runs along the theory that while you have a small part to play, it is enough if everyone also does it. However, it's my money, and I sometimes really wonder how much of that really goes into the organisations, and how much goes into the less fortunate. Charity is pity, and you give because you pity those less fortunate than you. It is a condescending attitude. Contrary, were I the less fortunate, I would prefer to earn my own living than live on the hand that might one day retract due to a decline in "altruistic" attitudes.

Furthermore, there are frauds everywhere.

Does it mean to withdraw your giving hand altogether? I guess it depends. Someone I respected once told me to "play to your strengths" and another person I don't really respect once chided me for "not being able to take the opportunities". So putting two and two together, I've decided that every time I want to do something selfish, it must have some sort of spill over effects that will benefit others as well. To use a term in arbitration, it's best to engage in integrative negotation (where the negotiation is based on interests, rather than position and authority). So for instance, for this master's project, I'm applying to use public money, to help the local start-up theatre performers/playwrights gain their portfolio by teaching/staging a play acted by youths for youths. I benefit by overseeing the play project and using valuable data to advance young people's scholarship, the public "donates" the excess wealth from economic growth to help a group of struggling artists and at the same time, the little ones have fun.

It's a lot of work, and it's not easy. But geez, we're talking about thousands of dollars here. Cents in a tin can? Singapore, we can do so much better if only we stop taking the easier way out. Charity involves effort and dedication - so what have you done today?