Mental Health, Personal Accountability, and Systemic Change

Past and present generations face their own set of challenges. People from all walks of life face difficulties of varied forms everyday. But some things remain the same and hold true for everyone. 

Mental health issues are not new. What is new is how we choose to define them for our times and how we choose to address them. Some things, we have made progress on. Like, how we now know more about dementia and treat people who have it better. Some things, we are on the process of learning more about. Like, how some countries are seeing that schizophrenia is not the untreatable disease it was once thought of, but that it is reversible if intervention is given early enough and if the needs of the person who has it can be addressed holistically. And on some things, I would argue, we are sliding backwards.

For instance, I would argue that these days we have become more tolerant of and open to what would be considered as mean-spirited and ethically wrong behaviors in the past. Greed is now just thought of as a right to claim as much resource as one can, and "competition" is now the word for leaving behind "the weak". Mental health professionals become complicit in this when they refuse to take a stand on matter of values and principles. And attaching oneself to trendy movements for social justice is not taking a stand. 

Sure, a movement can gain traction if it argues for what is just and moral, gain a lot of supporters, and finally break through mainstream acceptance. But, how do we tell if the movement that started out as a campaign against injustice begins to perpetuate injustices itself? How can we truly scrutinize any claims if we do not allow genuine discourse and dissent on it?

I would argue that a responsive and ethical mental health practice is one that does not do away with personal accountability while addressing systemic wrongdoings. Most people would shy away from discussing this topic openly because they do not want to be caught up in what they see as an unsolvable problem of morality calculus. How do we begin to tell where the need for systemic change begins and where the question of personal accountability ends? How do we measure one person's wrongdoings against another person's righteousness? 

But, I believe those questions are not really that hard to answer. And, as mental health professionals or psychologists, it falls upon us to explore human conditions, including that of the question of morality. We already have the answer to some aspects of them. We just need to build on those. Why do we need to build on previously settled ethical debates? Because we do not want to slide backwards to a time when clearly defined wrongdoings and injustices are permissible again. Because if we got this far, if your once outlier social justice movement successfully argued your case to the broader public, why should we suddenly stop and just accept that we will continue to commit wrongdoings as human beings? Sure, not all mistakes are grave or severely harmful. But, some are.

The discussion will be long and challenging. But, it must be sincere. Passive-aggressive murmurs are not acceptable. Come out in the open with your beliefs and put it up to test against opposing beliefs. Established institutions have a heavier burden of responsibility to take this on in a more transparent and accountable manner. From the more abstract and broad strokes of ideas, let us get into the specifics. Otherwise, any comforts offered are false comforts and any attempt at bridging "us versus them" begins to look nothing more like an effort to curb personal accountability and, in doing so, perpetuate systemic injustice.

If You Are Not Man Enough To Live In A War Zone, Don't Play With Bombs

War is stupid and unnecessary. When someone says, "we can use military might to force the opposing side to the negotiating table" what they are really saying is: destroy a few homes, maim a few children, kill a few people so that we get a deal. In essence, people who believe in wars or bombings as a negotiating tactic are people who are perfectly fine with using other people's lives as ante. The ultimate military escalation ends in mutually assured destruction. And if you do not want to blow up the entire world, if you are not ready to have everything killed and to kill yourself too, then don't kill others.

Innovative

In the Philippines, "think outside the box" is what is often told to people who want to do something that cannot or would not be supported by established institutions (for one reason or another) but is also acknowledged to be worth exploring. As a result, we get a lot of pop-up organizations standing for a number of causes which combines a lot of buzz-generating efforts meant to attract eyeballs and foot traffic to gain money to fund the effort.

But, oftentimes, the effort and the cause behind the effort becomes lost in the buzz and takes a back seat to the fundraising aspect. This often leads to a lot of disparate organizations with not a lot of results to show for and whole lot of wasted resource, time and money alike. In the worst cases, the resources are lost and just channeled into very specific pockets.

Sometimes, institutions open their doors to such efforts. They say with a smile all are welcome to try to change things within its space. But the entrance is not free. The price to be paid is to go against the prevailing culture of the place, the cliques, and the already entrenched powers who dare you to take from them what they see as their hard-won, rightful place. All this is socially acceptable as part of a culture of competition that believes the strongest viewpoints will survive and will benefit from active or even passive-aggressive resistance against it. 

While there is nothing inherently wrong with competition, its ills become evident when, just as outside-the-box organizations fall by the wayside, sincere efforts to improve upon systems are brought down taking with it the potential and promise that had been previously acknowledged and that had led to the doors being opened to it in the first place. Most disappointing of all, these things happen in the name of innovation and competition but end up with, little, if any, change to the established systems and, I believe, a net loss to the nation's capacity to innovate and progress.

In this context,  "think outside the box" then becomes nothing more than the throw-away phrase institution insiders use to keep at bay challenging ideas and maintain hold on a system that serves them well enough.

But, people make up institutions and people are complex. Still, complexity should never cloud our vision of the simplest truths. In the end, a genuine desire to change structural weaknesses in an institution require honest and sincere efforts that foregoes hidden charges at the entrance. This would require people to be honest with themselves first.

Women Empowerment Is Not A Monolith

When there is an external threat, the most optimal response for those under threat is to unify and move as a bloc. But, when the external threat has been resolved, it is typical that the previously unified bloc begin to break up and have dissent among themselves. This is part of progress.

Just as how Filipino people under threat of colonial powers needed to unify as one nation to defend themselves - and how when those colonial powers have retreated, the arduous and ongoing task of dissent and finding common ground among Filipino people themselves begun - so too does the women empowerment movement have progressed to the point where women can now voice dissent amongst themselves and work towards a more truthful definition of what an empowered woman is.

Though no group or movement is ever monolithic, a common principle - upon which all larger points are subsequently built - needs to be determined. To me, no common principle can ever hold a free, diverse, and democratic people other than the enduring principles of fairness and the truth. These principles are reflected not by mere loyalty to a bloc and avoiding dissent, but by ensuring that there is space for all to enage in a free, open, and reasonable exchange of ideas. The heavy task of a truly democratic communication among any group people is, ultimately, done not in pursuit not of any self-serving gain, but in order to advance our collective welfare as human beings, especially that of the most vulnerable among us.

Stupidity

To me, the opposite of stupidity is sincerity.

Only intelligent beings are capable of being sincere. You are smart when you can reason through everything and win every argument, but you are intelligent only when you are sincere. You can win every argument and still miss the point. You can reason through everything then you end up accepting the most unreasonable things. But when you sincerely want things to get better, you will find a way to make it better. We don't need AI or any advanced technology to tell us that. We can make things better when we begin to sincerely hope to do so. And if we are not good enough to make things better on Earth, we are not good enough to voyage out.

Real Life vs. Internet Culture

No, not everything is instant. Not everything is one click away. Things cannot be just played or gamed and you can't troll your way out of complicated situations. As much as tech hawks and their willing market want us to believe, we do not actually live online. 

Yes, many things happen online. You can form a whole narrative about who you want to be in a virtual space, sell it to people, and start to buy the fiction yourself. But, we live in the real world. Real life requires showing up consistently through the best and worst times. It requires a sturdy character and a clear stand on what matters.

At the end of the day, what are said and done in virtual spaces will reflect who we are in reality. Our online selves will be measured up to our real selves. Inconsistencies, if any, will show. Cracks in any inauthentically crafted persona will be revealed. 

Because when times are tough, the difference between an artificially inflated and detached online agenda versus our steady and consistent real world character will become so evident that the blurred line between virtual and reality will once again be crystal clear.

Undo Harm

All things have a good side and a bad side, they say. All we can do, they say, is make the most out of the benefits, and limit the negatives. This may be true now. It was true in the past and may even be true for the near future.

But, I disagree with those who say this. I believe a time will come when bad things not only can be limited, but can and must be completely undone and reversed.

I say, some things are perfectly good, and some things are perfectly evil. The gray area between the two exists only because we do not know everything yet - because some key information are still yet to be uncovered. The goal is to uncover all of it and know its full meaning. I believe this is possible because God (or whatever you want to call it) does not play dice, nature is not malevolent, and everything is out in the open waiting to be discovered by anyone with enough faith to persist in seeking. I believe the goal of removing the gray area - in other words uncovering the truth - is the only goal worth pursuing in life.

I choose to believe this because if this were true - if it is true that all things can be known, and that knowing everything will lead to an unadulterated understanding of good and evil, then it would mean that good things can exist without the bad. It would mean that any harm, not only can be limited, but can and must also be undone. It would mean that anything broken can and must be made whole again, anything corrupted can and must be made with integrity again, anything once dead will live forever, and anything lost will find salvation. It would mean there is justice. And, it will mean that our most noble ideals are not merely dreams, but a reality.

The alternative is to say we must live with both the good and the bad. And for a long time, we may have to. But while I refuse to believe this is a permanent state of affairs, I may be proven wrong in the end. Maybe that's all that there is. Maybe I end up being proven to be on the losing side of the battle. But, I have made my call. I have picked a side. If I lose, then at least I risked everything for the chance to undo harm.

What Happened to the Filipino Intellectuals?

The short answer to that question is that they were forcibly and, at many occasions, brutally removed from Filipino society and consciousness. For the most part today, all that is left of them are empty husks and unconvincing copies of the real deal - they are the annoying conyo, the out-of-touch mayaman, and the sell-out wannabes - who give being educated or successful a bad name.

The most recent and obvious moment when our country antagonized our own people was during the Martial Law period - where scores of Filipino intellectuals (student leaders, statesmen, artists, etc.) were tortured, disappeared, and killed. Many of those who survived were left heavily traumatized and ended up going into exile or leaving the country for good. Such circumstance resulted in a classic brain drain for the country.

But, a less violent continuation of this intellectual capital loss continues to this day. It picked up where the trauma from the massacre had left off, and started its run with only subtle hints, insinuations, that maybe, just maybe - people who strive to be decent, who value hard work especially in education, and more importantly, those who put a premium on honesty and integrity in learning and in life's dealings in general - were nothing more than out-of-touch elitists and hypocrites; maybe they were being too Westernized; maybe they were even un-Filipino. Why? Because isn't a Filipino supposed to be someone "relatable", meaning - a little slow in class, knows how to cut corners sometimes, not too honest, with a konting-diskarte-konting-ilegal-papaldo-rin-can-do mindset. Straight English talk? Nosebleed. Sipag? Bakit, mamanahin mo ba ang kumpanya? And most important, wag ka masyadong honest nagbibiruan lang tayo dito char.

When did we as a people accept that hardwork, honesty, and genuine pursuit of knowledge is nothing more than utopian thinking, o worse, a vice that must be eliminated? When did we as a people accept that money was the end all and be all; that just having money made you a good person to be emulated; that a certain fair-skinned look, a certain manner of speaking, a certain way of dressing and a very particular culture - were the only ones of value and acceptable as representative of what it means to be Filipino, and that any other ones must be viewed with suspicion or even considered lesser? 

I know when. It is when we surrendered our psychology. "We may surrender everything, but we must never surrender our psychology" is a roundabout way of saying we surrender nothing. For when we know our psychology, we know who we are. And when we know who we are, we have control over the one thing we can control in life - ourselves.

But maybe, the erosion of trust to begin with in the ruling Filipino intellectual elites was a result of a genuine dissatisfaction with the way they had governed back then, and out of a genuine anger at their dismissiveness to people outside of their lot in life. Maybe, grave mistakes were made, power voids were created, people's darker impulses took over, and a price had to be paid.

That may be so. But we must never mistake enduring values - honesty, hardwork, dedication to learning - as something that merely belongs to this or that class or this or that culture. These are values that must cut across all walks of life, for they are the only thing that will lift us all up together. And, as long as there is time, what have been lost may be gained back. What have been surrendered, may be reclaimed. We can define who we are for ourselves, and most importantly, aim to stay true to our better nature over our darker instincts at all times.