Feed on
Posts
Comments

Stage & Screen 5

Jun 9th, 2009 by David

This post is part of a series. Please start reading at ‘Stage & Screen 1′ below.

app00231In his editorial introduction to the January 1968 special edition of ‘Scalebor’ mental hospital magazine, price sixpence, 24 year old ’schizophrenic’ inmate Patrick Schofield refers to “the hundreds of men and women who find themselves living and working” in the hospital and states “We have tried to make the magazine an expression of their real suffering, their conflicts and their pain. We hoped to include their hopes, but we did not think it right to invent them for you.”

These words are the preface to an essay stapled at irregular intervals between the variously coloured and crudely reproduced A4 sheets of the DIY publication. Perhaps Patrick thought that his incendiary critique would be less easy to rip out if he packaged it thus. The essay is titled ‘Strange Admissions: the fear of madness and the madness of fear.” Shortly after publication, Patrick was thrown out of the loony bin and sought help from the radical shrinks of the Philadelphia Association (see ‘Stage & Screen 2′).

Here are some excerpts:

” Within Scalebor there are three main types of job: you can be a psychiatrist or therapist, a nurse or a patient. But these words are nothing more than labels. Many people at Scalebor take this labelling so seriously they completely lose sight of the fact these labels are only very approximate indications of the tasks people do. It is only when we are nearing the verge of madness that someone can claim that the staff are superior to the patients because they are staff and the patients only patients.

2056833070065323262zjqnfd_ph-1

It might be useful to look at what is happening inside Scalebor in terms of games theory and transactional analysis. The game is called ‘Mental Hospital’; there are two sides opposing one another within the hospital, one called ’staff’ and the other ‘patients’. At the moment we shall confine ourselves to the game between nursing staff and patients; the ‘psychiatrists’ play it rather differently than the nurses.

That there is ceaseless conflict between nurses and patients is quite obvious; the game itself is far more complex. the patients are merely the counters with which it is played; anyone who wants to develop this can find themselves hours of amusement in following the daily struggles between nursing, administrative, psychology department and medical staff; how they play one another off, stab each other in the back, shift the blame and the responsibility. What is important here is the prize; and the prize to be fought for is power. That is, power over the patients. This can be exercised directly (nursing staff on the ward) or by gaining control of all the other sectors of control.

These battles are so heated that the supposed reason for the hospital’s existence - the welfare of the patients - has become merely the issue around which the feuds and vendettas are fought.

Let us focus on the major outline of the staff’s game. Its object is clearly to control the patients so that they may be maximally exploited (’cured’) before they are ejected back into the outside world. If the staff as a whole can frustrate and nullify everything the patients try to do, this will make their task extremely violent but quite easy. It is therefore their aim to ensure that nothing, absolutely nothing happens. This would of course be impossible unless extremely violent techniques were brought to bear. It is these techniques that effect and maintain that terrible feeling of silent murder that pervades the hospital.

The only counterploy available to those who find themselves cast as patients (they are the only group in the hospital who are on the receiving end all the time) is to get clear of the place as soon as they can. If the patient goes along with the staff’s idea of what a good patient ought to be, he must wreak the most awful violation upon himself. If he feels that he must not do this then he must break with the passivity he is ordered to realise. But within the game there is no room for an active patient. It is enormously threatening to the staff’s attempt to keep control, for a patient that argues, criticises and does things of his or her own initiative gives the lie to the staff’s belief that the patient is purely an object-animal.

The only organisation that Scalebor manifests is that of permanent mobilisation against the patients. The staff cannot bear to look at the chaos within themselves so they project this out onto the patients and try to abolish it out there. ”

app00241Patrick Schofield’s essay continues in this manner. It dissects and analyses the relationships between all the contending groups in the loony bin and produces a compelling picture of the patients as a group of hapless, useful ‘object-animals’ who serve to dynamise the submerged but psychotic objectives of cabals of incarcerated professional healers.

Towards the beginning of the excerpts Patrick turns the propositions of ‘game theory’ against those who vie to heal him. These useful concepts - premised on an inescapable performative alienation at the very heart of ‘everyday behaviour’ - hark back to 50s transactional analysis (and probably, in Patrick’s case, Eric Berne’s book ‘Games People Play‘ (1964)) but draw attention to the scripting and role playing that are generally unacknowledged in everyday life. They are, of course, taken for granted in the performing arts.

Vaulting blithely over the intervening decades I will, in the next post, offer some comments on two movies that straddle the millennium: ‘The Truman Show’ (1998) and ‘Synecdoche New York’ (2008). Ten years apart, they demonstrate the shifts in ownership that have come about with regard to matters of theatricality as the latter have corroded the notion of unpremeditated and unselfconscious behaviour.

Continued in ‘Stage & Screen 6′…

Posted in 'Synecdoche New York', 'The Truman Show', game theory, paranoia, transactional analysis | No Comments »

Stage & Screen 4

Jun 8th, 2009 by David

This post is part of a series. Please start reading at ‘Stage & Screen 1′ below.

In the ‘Essays’ section of Strength Weekly is a piece titled ‘What We Talk About’ in which I write about a series of experiences I had at the Anti-University of London (see the ‘1968′ entry here) in the late 60s. I supply a link to the essay here in order to develop the idea, raised in the previous post, of the schizogenic society - one which makes some of its denizens schizophrenic. The essay is largely concerned with an article that Patrick Schofield - a ’schizophrenic’ inmate of a British mental hospital - wrote for the hospital magazine. The article was the product of a fierce and lucid intelligence focused on an analysis of hospital life. Patrick was mad therefore whatever he wrote was worthless. This handy rule of thumb fell apart so spectacularly that Patrick was abruptly ejected from the hospital in order to preserve the sanity of its staff.

I invite you to read the essay before considering some extracts from Patrick’s article.

Continued in ‘Stage & Screen 5′…

Posted in paranoia | No Comments »

Stage & Screen 3

Jun 8th, 2009 by David

This post is part of a series. Please start reading at ‘Stage & Screen 1′ below.

Laing’s radical psychology provides a means of reclaiming the narrator of the ’surveillance theatre’ document (see ‘Stage & Screen 1′ below) from the dank cul de sac that is the terminus for the barking nutjob. Clearly the narrator is unnerved by city life and has concocted a narrative that makes it manageable. After all, he did hand a copy of his treatise to my friend Trevor who, presumably, was deemed exempt from membership of the secret police and their legion thespian minions. With support from Laing it becomes possible, at the very least, not to rush to judgment, wherein judgment is synonymous with incarceration accompanied by invasive, often physically harsh, treatments.

set12hdr3from_img_6892eIf the city has been made manageable by cladding it in an exotic narrative premised on conspiratorial surveillance - which latter strikes one as a thoroughly nightmarish prospect - then we can speculate that the prospect of a city that is not centrally organised and therefore not predictable - a city in which shit just happens - is truly terrible. Conspiratorial surveillance could be seen as comforting by comparison - it does, after all, put considerable resources behind a single individual, who must, surely, be rather highly esteemed to merit such scrutiny.

The question arises as to whether there is any insight of value to be found in what the narrator actually says - as distinct from any insight that we might have into his reasons for saying it. Laing, as already suggested, would insist that beneath the mad talk resides an articulation of pain that has internal coherence and descriptive truth. He was, though, referring mainly to schizophrenic speech rather than paranoid speech i.e. a speech which makes little sense sentence by sentence or phrase by phrase while the paranoid mode - as in the ’surveillance’ piece - is entirely clear and, indeed, would pass as decent journalism in a world in which such schemes were the norm. That said, if the narrator’s view of city life is to be taken seriously - after a degree of interpretation - then it is as a critique. It has some political force.

In a book written in 1964 with Aaron Esterson, ‘Sanity, Madness & the Family’, Laing analyses a series of interviews with the families of schizophrenic individuals and concludes that a subtle scapegoating process is going on in which the schizophrenic is being burdened with the unacknowledged fears, anxieties and potential madnesses of family members who have, without consulting each other, nevertheless ‘elected’ one member to the status of madness in order to relieve the pressure on those left ‘normal’. Laing and Esterson’s thesis enabled them to develop the notion of the ’schizogenic’ family - the family that would produce or induce schizophrenia in one of its members.

If families can drive you mad then what of the societies within which those families have developed? It was a relatively modest jump from the idea of the schizogenic family to that of the schizogenic society. The society that drove you mad. The psychology designed to heal troubled individuals now had a broad social and political application.

Continued in ‘Stage & Screen 4′…

Posted in R D Laing, myth, paranoia | No Comments »

Stage & Screen 2

Jun 5th, 2009 by David

This post is part of a series. Please start reading at ‘Stage & Screen 1′ below.

New ways of looking at the mad were supplied by the radical psychiatrist R.D. Laing and his colleagues in the 1960s. Madness was seen as a reaction to an impossible situation and treated as a crucial stage on a developmental journey that should not be aborted with drugs or electroshock but encouraged to unfold. This unfolding might be protracted and would depend on the constant, almost sacrificial ministrations of sympathetic therapists. The idea of the ‘asylum’ - a benign place of shelter - was revived and in 1965, at Kingsley Hall, in the East End of London, Laing, Berke, Redler and others began to offer residential support and radical therapy to a number of schizophrenic patients.

23526Mary Barnes is probably the best known of those who were recovered from - or guided through - extreme disorder by the methods of the Laingian group, which shortly formed into the Philadelphia Association. Barnes lived in a state of terror and distress much of the time, smearing her faeces on the walls and speaking incomprehensibly. Her therapist, Joseph Berke, refused the notion of the schizophrenic as as a gobbledegook-spouting loony, preferring to see both the unsettled speech and the erratic behaviour as unconventional but consistent, readable codes that might be deciphered by one who was prepared to listen and learn. Barnes was given a space in which to regress and eventually emerged from her psychosis to become a painter. She and Berke wrote of their work together here.

Everyday life at Kingsley Hall was documented by the film-maker Luke Fowler, whose work is exhibited at the Serpentine Gallery in London until June 14th. In his film ‘What You See Is Where You’re At’, showing continuously at the gallery, Fowler examines the world of David Bell, one of Laing’s most floridly expressive ‘mad’ patients.

I used to seek out, in the 60s and 70s, lectures and conferences at which Laing spoke and grew accustomed to the Q & A periods in which Bell would rise from his seat and hold forth. He had the aplomb of a seasoned orator and the mischievousness of a standup comic. His speeches, usually in response to a point Laing had made, were very hard to understand. They could be compared, probably superficially, to passages from ‘Finnegan’s Wake’ but at least with the latter came the option to read and re-read at one’s own pace. Laing would listen intently to Bell and, in front of the conference crowd, embark upon dialogues with him. He would, apparently, answer ripostes from Bell in his own slow, hesitating but thoroughly lucid manner leaving the audience impressed but rather wishing they, too, had understood the question.

What sticks in my mind as much as the spectacle of Bell’s fluent but arcane declamations was his habit of sweeping his hand compulsively across his left brow whilst speaking. So frequent and forceful were these actions that he had created on his temple an area of self-inflicted male pattern baldness.

Laing’s radical psychology did not only demystify the madman, it implicated the madman’s family and also the society in which the family found itself.

Continued in ‘Stage & Screen 3′…

Posted in R D Laing, paranoia | No Comments »

Stage & Screen 1

Jun 4th, 2009 by David

A man came up to my my friend Trevor in New York in the early 80s and handed him a sheaf of densely typed foolscap. The man told my friend to read the document because it was very important. It turned out be a detailed account of an extraordinary project involving what could be called ’surveillance theatre’. The account opened harmlessly enough: the narrator - who is never named - is hiking on the Appalachian Trail, seventy miles north of Bangor, Maine. He spends the night in a log cabin and is befriended by a man named Duncan Boland who asks him questions about politics, the nature of reality and God. It immediately becomes clear to the narrator that Duncan ‘had been chosen to be my companion by government intelligence.’ Descending the mountain the next day the group meets a muscular woman who offers to guide them down. She advises them to avoid some boulders and leads them to a narrow ledge overlooking a one hundred foot drop. When the narrator has traversed the ledge he realises that the correct and safer route led over the boulders. ‘Despite over four years of harassment and threats,’ the narrator remarks ‘I hadn’t realized until that moment, how determined the secret police were to scare me.’

His uneasiness was not allayed by the fact that, as he hiked on, ‘my companions were four moose, a bear, several deer and at least forty secret police and collaborators.’ Returning to New York he sought accommodation. The secret police had already selected and prepared an apartment for him on East 11th Street. As he ruefully observes ‘The apartment provides me with a place to live but it also provides the secret police with a living environment they control’.

3057286246_b6ce0446611

The full and startling scope of the narrator’s misfortune is then summed up. ‘The building where I live, the surrounding buildings and the neighborhood serve as a theatrical set; and the ‘tenants’ of my building, neighborhood characters, and intelligence agents stage a theatrical production.’ Not only have the secret police located him where they want him, ‘they calculated that everything about the apartment building, neighbors and neighborhood would make me feel as if I had reached the end-of-the-line.’ ‘The neighborhood is an oppressive scene of poverty and desolation: great piles of uncollected garbage line the sidewalks, litter is strewn everywhere…’ ‘For several months, whenever I entered or left the building, two angry German Shepherds on the second floor would howl furiously and claw at their door.’

It wasn’t just the animals and the dilapidation, however. ‘The number of tenants seems to change every month but approximately fourteen people pretend to live in the building… a mad looking bag lady, a sleeping derelict, a sleeping teenage boy…a topless fifty year old woman wearing only white panties, a man waving a knife…I believe I am the only person who lives in the building, but there are probably rotating twenty-four hour guards to provide protection and to prevent any unauthorized visitors. Among the attempts to make the building seem “real” and inhabited are: putting phony mail in the mailboxes, collecting garbage from elsewhere and filling the building’s trash cans,and placing people in various apartments to make a variety of noises as I pass by; frequently playing radios, televisions, and musical instruments; and staging loud conversations or arguments.’
pedestrian-crossing
The scheme was nothing if not comprehensive. ‘The secret police have imposed upon me a substitute reality; they have dismembered and appropriated the real world and placed me in a labyrinth of intelligence operations… At any given moment several intelligence agents work together choreographing street theater and surveillance operations.’ The operations are carefully designed to simulate ordinary street life, and they require large casts of actors. ‘As I approach the intersection, a signal is given and people, most of whom are young men, start crossing the intersection from every direction; people walking on the sidewalk, boys riding by on bikes,and other people driving by in cars. Intelligence agents frequently use this kind of collaborator saturation placement at other intersections.’

The narrator continues in this fashion for several pages. Hundreds of collaborators are employed to create the street scenes through which he walks daily and he must learn, amongst other things, to resist eye contact with handsome young men who may entrap him or dealers who attempt to compromise him by offering him illicit drugs. Not a single aspect of everyday city life has escaped the choreographic machinations of the secret police.

I guess I first read the document back in the 80s, possibly not so long after it had been written. It is, by any standard, remarkable and it elicits assessments that clearly identify the reader with a small number of available attitudes: the writer is raving mad; the writer is a good, articulate writer with an exceptional imagination; the writer has an illness but could be treated in such a way that he would see the misjudgments he is making; the writer sees truths that are too painful for him to confront; the writer sees truths that are too painful for us to confront. These various positions were current in the 80s and persist today. What has changed is the level of eccentricity attributable to the individual who generates such a body of perceptions. In Part 2 I’ll look at this in more detail.

Continued in ‘Stage & Screen 2′…

Posted in delusion, paranoia | No Comments »

You Are My House Now

Mar 27th, 2009 by David

There’s where I was born, still fairly recognisable. And there’s where we moved to when I was about nine. And here’s where we are now. I expect my car is parked along the road somewhere but I can’t be bothered to persuade the cumbersome navigational apparatus to take me down there to check it out.

camera_headGoogle Street View is settling in at the moment. Once the privacy fusspots calm down we can look at our houses for the rest of our lives. That they will calm down is not guaranteed but given what Google knows it’s pretty inevitable. Google knows that we know there’s something wrong about Street View but we can’t quite put our finger on it. This vague unease is more than compensated for by the vague feeling that there’s something right about it. On examination, however, the latter sentiment proves to be a bit odd and we shouldn’t let Google know about it or else they’ll invent a camera that looks through curtains.

The trouble is that when you can see your house on Street View you know it’s your house. Without this massive, globalised, external system of ratification you wouldn’t know it was your house. night_6I mean, of course you’d know it was your house because that’s what you wake up in most days of the week. But sometimes it’s very hard to feel that life in the world, and its attendant material accoutrements, is real. I mean, of course it’s real because you can discuss it with friends and you can agree that, more or less, probably more, you are having similar experiences, which tends to validate the proposition unless you are drawn to philosophise.

Anyway, it’s to do with identity. If the world was any good you could look at your house, by standing outside in the street, say, and the experience would be simple: “That’s my house.” This isn’t to do with mortgages or ownership, by the way. If the world was any good you could stand outside your rental accommodation and something simple but important would still just happen. But it doesn’t.images-4 I mean, you see it, you could touch it if you wanted, you know it’s yours, rental or otherwise, but the angle is wrong. As in film or photography: you have to get the right angle. Angles are, however, premised on a divergence of lines or planes from a common point. In this case the common point is oneself and its pointedness has deteriorated. Identity is found wanting. Its criteria have deteriorated.

Hot air balloonists, especially on their first flights, are often taken over their houses in order to look down upon them. Same with light aircraft flying lessons. You can see how you fit into the scheme of things. Very satisfying. It does wear off though. It may be memorable but its significance fades. In this case, however, the angle is ideal. The greater the vertical distance from your house you can get, within reason, the more it is yours. And the more it is yours the more you are. In the scheme of things.

It’s to do with consumerism. We’ve been taught to test reality and our status in it by evaluating the strength of our feeling for inanimate objects. The feelings have to be good feelings, which they will be if there are sufficient objects and these objects take our love without complaint. The stronger those ties the stronger you are. Again, this isn’t to do with ownership so much as getting back what was yours anyway. Because you deserve it.

186383010_7d8b6ad0abStreet View flattens the world, both literally, as a screen image, and figuratively in the sense that it subsumes it into an arcade game. It is superior to the holiday snap because it permits, or seems to permit, the sensation of being able to engulf an object rather than be engulfed by it. It allows us, in conjunction with Google Earth, to approach the object from above and from the sides and all perspectives in between. In so doing we are simultaneously aware of its location in a scene or a scheme to a far greater degree than the holiday snap allows. The holiday snap, as has been widely noted, has the power to confirm that an experience actually occurred. Unless supported by a physical trace, apparently, the memory of an experience is unreliable. Street View has the power to confirm our parity with the object by dramatising an ideal relationship with it. My place in this world of objects gives me a common point.

My house looks like my house if I go out into the street now. But if I hunt it down on Street View it is a jewel sparkling with heightened houseness. It is seamlessly integrated into the Bayeux Tapestry of the digital arcade. I am a citizen of that arcade. The arcade includes me. It also includes everybody - all the more reason to claim my residency. If, for a moment, I doubt my substance, I can refer to the arcade and it will consolidate, in its virtuality, that which is unsolid.

gps-global-positioning-system-is-keeping-sight-on-youAnother piece of metaphysical electronics that heightens the sensation of being what you already are is GPS. Any mobile phone worth its salt is equipped with a Global Positioning System. Activate it and it will tell where you are wherever you are. It won’t tell you what country or street you are in but it will give you a string of figures that some people, probably not you, can translate, with the aid of maps, into a position. If you had a map you could go from your position to another position. If you had a phone, which you do, you could tell someone else your position. They could rescue you. If you were not in any particular trouble they could say “That sounds like a lovely position.”

GPS, eh? Nobody needs it. Apart from explorers and the imminent lost. The latter may suspect they are about to become lost as a result of having developed weak relationships with objects.

Posted in Google Street View, global positioning system | No Comments »

Site 20-20

Mar 3rd, 2009 by David

The site is no longer down. It is up. The puppy has been upgraded to a trim young dog. Good.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Site Horror

Feb 27th, 2009 by David

The site is down. It has evaporated, leaving only text and images behind. I haven’t a clue how to get it back. But I know someone who does. He is coming next Tuesday. Sorry. It’s like losing a puppy.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Getting into Pictures

Feb 25th, 2009 by David

It’s a shock when you go to the pictures to see ‘The Reader’ because there, on the screen, albeit heavily disguised, is Kate Winslet doing her day job. So ubiquitous is she in the prints and matrices that it is easy to equate her with those whose day job is simply being seen, at night, entering and leaving clubs, unbaggaged by any previous history of achievement. In a banal inversion her work as an actress in movies becomes a way of getting her photographs in newspapers. If, therefore, you want to get into newspapers, all you have to do is become a successful actress. How hard can that be?

kate.jpgKate, as I like to think of her, is an actress of substance yet, as a denizen of the least important pages of any print publication currently in existence, becomes readily interchangeable with Peaches and Kelly and is thereby strongly associated with the fascination (I use the word guardedly) of pure presence. This isn’t something clever: it involves being without doing ( i.e. breathing) and is the product of a process of deracination launched in the Thatcherist 80s when ideas about the nature of individualism, borrowed in part from  60s notions of ‘the beautiful person’ (i.e. one whose (imagined) essence is more apparent than their personality) were hystericised to the point that distinctiveness was valued more than value. This baldness of being was the cynical complement to the process of asset stripping the employment future that young people had previously assumed was theirs to negotiate. In the absence of conventional markers for identity it became important to provide an economy version that licensed the user to ‘be somebody’ merely by stating that they were somebody. In one sense, of course, we are all somebody. In the hypnotised version that isn’t enough: we must feel that we are special despite the fact that we might just be disposable. It isn’t just that you become somebody by telling people that you are somebody - you must believe that they believe you. A deal can be struck: I will believe that you are somebody if you will believe that I am somebody.

Posted in Kate Winslet, pure presence | No Comments »

What Was Said (an occasional series) #1

Feb 5th, 2009 by David

In this new but occasional Strength Weekly feature I transcribe snatches of speech that have stuck in my mind over the years. I attempt briefly to analyse their probable significance and their staying power. When I say ’stuck in my mind’ I mean that these snippets present themselves to consciousness over and over without being actively summoned. They just pop up. This may mean that they are important in some way. Or it may not.

Driving west along the M4 in the early 70s with Ian. He says “You’re very close to that car in front.” I say “Yeah.” He says “What if his brake lights weren’t working?”
brakelight.jpgI had never had a thought like that. I had had anxious thoughts but none with the special intricacy of Ian’s thought. A whole new way of looking at the world - a dull way - opened up. You could be in a situation which contained the potential for risk - take any situation, for example - and you could analyse its components with a view to identifying weaknesses that could precipitate disaster.

This is, of course, not without its merits. However, as I have observed, it is dull. That the snippet often comes to mind is, however, mildly unsettling. It suggests that one is cruising off the coast of a very worrying place. On the plus side, I suppose, is the fact that sometimes when I’m driving along the motorway the thought comes up and I brake slightly in order to recede from a car in front. This has to be a good thing.

Posted in risk assessment, the dull | No Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »