Thoughts unlimited & CO

These are times of economic disaster. Any suggestion to create work should be welcomed because the unemployment rates escalate to dramatic figures all over in Europe. In the Netherlands, although the situation is not as terrifying as in Southern Europe, the ghost of unemployment also appears before some individuals. Some social organizations (MOVISIE, for example) call vulnerable groups (kwetsbare groepen) those individuals that have common characteristics which make them more vulnerable in society (1). Those are the ones that see the ghost of unemployment sooner and often. However, there are many fragile individuals that escape any framing within any group. Those are the most vulnerable of them all.

 ‘Increase your chances to develop a career’ sounds good. This was the motto of several prestigious organizations, institutions, businesses, and experts in the Dutch labour market that organized the fair ‘woman and career plus diversity works’ (vrouw en carrière and diversity works). The target: vulnerable although highly educated groups. Here, assembled under one umbrella, two sets of people were invited: ‘women’ and the ‘cultural Other’. In my opinion, things are not as simple as the slogan ‘woman and career plus diversity works’ seems to imply, but let us pass the simplistic combination of the concepts woman and diversity. Let us be practical.

However, I have difficulties figuring out to which group do I belong…to the woman/career or to the diversity/works? Most probably to none of them because everything in that fair seemed to be directed to the ‘young professional’ and I am not so young anymore and (although highly educated) I am currently without a profession. Nonetheless, a friend and I assisted to this fair, in the name of the common sense that told us “you have to be positive and try to find a job anywhere”. We had plenty of questions to make to potential future employers: what kind of employees are you trying to find? What do you look for in an employee? How many jobs do you have available in your company? How does the process of selection work? Do you have tips for those who want to work in your company? What do I have to do to come to work for you?

 We expected to get some interactions with companies, institutions and organizations. We thought we would find:

1. Firms explaining briefly what they needed.
2. Institutions informing about their programs to boost employment rates.
3. The Dutch chamber of commerce (KVK) updating their proposals for training on how to start your own business.

We did not find what we expected and any direct interaction with employers was impossible because they were not there…Well, there were a Dutch bank, the police, and a couple of technological companies… I actually approached one electric/gas firm and asked to a spokesperson whether they would require any graduate in humanism … “Here, we are all engineers…” he answered… With a big smile I said “I had already guessed it was more a kind of rhetorical question”…He did not appreciate my subtle joke though, which made me think that indeed they do need humanists more than what they think.

The fair’s organizers had scheduled workshops, which were assumed to teach you everything you were supposed to learn there. Among other inspiring matters, the workshops would teach you about: how to keep your daily inner balance and combat stress; how to ‘networking’ and improve your links in real and virtual life; how to negotiate;  how to dress for success; which colour would suit you better in developing a career….

Most of the workshops were directed to those who were already within the work-machine. All those inspiring ideas did not really help the outsiders trying to get in the work-machine. However, during the fair, it was possible to get your resume (CV) reviewed by an intermediary or in other words recruitment bureau. These bureaus consider themselves experts in the recruitment business (‘werving en selectie’) and they had a busy time checking resumes.

In fact, the figure of the intermediary was visibly present in this fair. Not only you would find there the recruitment bureaus (for example Jobnet and Randstad) but also ‘the star of our times’: the coach. There was ample offer of advisers and guides that would help your steps to develop a wonderful career.  I did not ask about their rates but I thought it was very helpful to know that in urgent need I can always begin my own business as a coach.

In sum, the woman and career fair, that joined forces to the diversity works fair, offered a broad range of advice to the already employed. There was also plenty of space for those who advertised their services to help you grow and develop a bright career. Therefore, basically, the firms present in the fair were there to find clients not to find employees. The actual vacancies were nowhere to be seen. Perhaps this was obvious for some people, all those who did not bother to pay a visit to the fair…

Notes

(1) MOVISIE, definition of vulnerable groups: Definitie kwetsbare groepen

The question of ‘what it means to be human’ (1) is an urgent one. It seems to me that in periods and locations of crisis, the human is (re)defined following a social Darwinist perspective: the fitter you are the more human you become; the less fit the less human. The sick, the poor, the old and all the crossings, variables and combinations there within are ‘the less fit’ who nowadays begin to be seen as less human. Schizophrenics, as sick individuals, apparently belong to this group.

Psychiatry labels as ‘schizophrenia’ a rather broad range of complex mental disorders. According to the psychiatric discourse the schizophrenic ‘can hardly make a difference between real and unreal experiences’ (define me what is real); ‘think logically’ (define me what is logical); ‘have normal emotional responses’ (define me what is normal); ‘behave normally in social situations’ (again, what is normal?) (2). Following this definition, a lot more individuals than those who actually have been diagnosed as such, could be schizophrenics (including the psychiatrists themselves). However, there is of course social agreement about what must be considered ‘normal’ and ‘logical’ and consequently everything that falls outside that social agreement is what becomes ‘schizophrenic’. It is disturbing and we cannot understand it (3). Actually, we can understand a great deal…but it is dangerous to acknowledge it.

The literary critic and feminist Gayatri Spivak, in her analysis Can the subaltern speak? makes an interesting point by considering ‘the mad’ as a special kind of subaltern. The subaltern is a term that postcolonial, feminist and post-human theory (among other theories) have borrowed from Antonio Gramsci to refer to individuals that are not included within a certain established and generally accepted power structure. In this sense, I see the schizophrenic also as a kind of subaltern, among other reasons because, no matter how hard we try to ‘cure them’, there is no cure for the schizophrenic. The only possible way for them to survive is to take drugs that will allow them to accept the social structure, obey and relax. In other words, they are forced to accept.

However, the living conditions of the schizophrenic vary depending on their location. I can talk about the conditions for the schizophrenic in two countries in Europe: The Netherlands and Spain. It is my perception that in The Netherlands, the conditions are slightly better than in Spain. It seems that in The Netherlands schizophrenics are considered humans and as such they have full citizen’s rights which grant them independence and autonomy. In Spain this is not the case, schizophrenics are condemned to depend on the compassion of family and friends as a pet animal.

Imagine that you live in Spain and you have been diagnosed as ‘schizophrenic paranoid’. This diagnosis makes you dependant of your psychiatrist, your social worker and your medicine for the rest of your life. You become semi-isolated or fully isolated because, let’s face it, as schizophrenic your social abilities to make friends and keep contacts are not the best. You live together with your elderly parents who trust and rely on the social services because they cannot fight for their ‘human’ rights or yours: first, they are too old and tired; second, they are not used to; third, they get easily intimidated by the hierarchical top-down tone used by Spanish public servants. Nonetheless, you expect help from the public instances. After all, you and your parents have been paying the Social Security taxes for a long time, long enough to be treated as a ‘human’. Besides, society has played a role for you to become schizophrenic in the first place (4).

However, Spanish social services are not prepared to guide you in order for you to get your full rights as human. For example: to get a room in a place where you are granted independence but under the supervision that you need under your circumstances of schizophrenic, or to get a job as a volunteer… They do not know how to help you but they do not admit it. Instead, they suppress you and your family in the purest Kafka style by showing you a map that will take you nowhere. It takes you from A (psychiatrist) to B (social worker) and the other way round until you die or commit a crime, because it seems that the only way out of the vicious circle comes from the penal code. As long as you do not commit a crime, the social services do not know what to do to help you. Once you commit a crime, then you are not helped either, you are secluded because you have become a menace for the others.

I have been observing this situation in Spain for a year now. I have not observed this situation in The Netherlands.

 Notes

(1)  J. Bourke (2011) What it means to be human. UK: Virago.

(2)  This definition comes from the American Centre for Biotechnology Information: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

(3)  I am aware that I am simplifying things here, after all this is a blog, not a thesis.(4)  About the role of society in the production of schizophrenia see: Michael Foucault; Deleuze & Guattari; Lisa Appignanesi.

In The Netherlands, women die after a heart attack more often than men, because they wait too long before calling the emergency number for help (1). I find this information quite shocking and some questions prompt in my mind. “Women die more often than men of a heart attack”, it sounds like a competition, as in: let’s see who dies first or last. Nobody should die, I guess.

The women in the article published by the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad, are blamed for dying. They are presented as lacking the necessary agency to survive. They were not fast enough to make the phone call. They waited too long. They are not competitive enough in the struggle for life. These women were passive…The first question that prompt in my mind is, how can anybody blame the victim without blushing?

Let us have a look inside Dutch culture. People in the Netherlands are expected to be strong. Following a concept of strength that becomes associated to toughness, stoer (in Dutch). The general tune goes that you should never complain, zeuren. If you have pain or you are sick, you have to justify it thoroughly with rational arguments and not talk too much about it. Even general practitioners and medical insurances, advice to think twice before you make an appointment with the doctor, besides it is expensive, duur. Your baby is crying? Do not run immediately to attend it, otherwise it might weaken its future character. Is it raining or snowing? Do not complain! you go cycling to school as usual, that is normal, gewoon. That series of performances will strength your character and you will not turn into a ‘zeuren Pietje’, ‘nagging Peter’. Live is hard, get over it!

Am I surprised that women in The Netherlands do not ask for help when they feel sick and  that consequently they die? Not at all, but…why are just women experiencing this and not men as well?

It is common knowledge that in order to survive, individuals adapt to their environment. They imitate and sometimes internalize the attitudes that are socially accepted, because they themselves want to be accepted. Joanna Bourke explains the phenomenon of ‘effective mimicry’. That is ‘the evolutionary strategy to survive which includes among other performances imitation and adaptive behaviour (2). Social Darwinism explains that in order to integrate within a privileged strata of society ‘flawless performance is indispensable’ and those who want to be accepted within a group become perfectionist in the performance of the ideal role model (3). Bourke indicates that many women have adopt, at several points in history and in various professional contexts, the role model’s behaviour that ruled: ‘they become more manly than men’. Bourke refers of course to men that internalize and follow a specific type of masculinity. The kind of masculinity that is associated with the fittest and therefore the one with more chances to survive. This pattern of behaviour is also internalized by women, after all, you also want to be identified with the fittest one and have social success (this reminds me Rosi Braidotti’s wise observation: ‘you don’t shake off the negative conditions just by having women in power’(4)).

All for the sake of showing off that you are the fittest, and that you are going to survive. It is all about becoming-the fittest by the performance of a certain definition of strength. This is the mimicry of the simulacrum of ‘strength’ (5).  Unfortunately this schema is applied incorrectly and ridiculously as it might sound, in the end you do not survive at all. As in the case the NRC refers to: women die more often than men from an infarct because they called too late.

Those women have surely learnt not to complain, zeuren and have taken their attitude to the extreme by not asking for help when they really needed it. Sadly enough, those women themselves seem to be blamed for it. For calling so late that they cannot be saved. Once more, society washes its hands freeing itself of any responsibility in the case.

(1)  Vrouwen sterven na hartanval vaker dan mannen. Vrouw wacht bij infart te lang met alarmoproep. NRC Handelsblad, Wednesday April  25^th 2012.

(2) Joanna Bourke (2011) What it means to be human. London: Virago Press.

(3) Ibid

(4) Rosi Braidotti speaking during the symposium: “Com-passion and/as Self-fragilization: Thinking Art-Theory-Ethics” Utrecht University, April 13^th 2012. Utrecht, The Netherlands.

(5) Simulacrum as in Deleuze en Guattari, very well explained by Brian Massumi in: Realer than real.