Ethical Concerns for Providers when Dealing with Refugee Populations

There is no doubt that mental health professionals and other service providers can help alleviate the effects of trauma, torture and other crimes that are perpetrated against people and communities due to circumstances, religion, war, etc... Throughout this class, I have learned quite a bit about the consequences to both individuals and groups based on trauma/ torture and have even broadened my views of how those terms should be defined. Between therapies that are individualized or set up for groups (such as a family, community or people with the same traumas and problems in common) and interactions that attempt to alleviate suffering through the use of medical training, pharmaceuticals, neurobiological or cognitive therapies, etc... Many groups and professional have been focused on – and continue to try- to help victims and the society as a whole heal, develop techniques for survival and daily care, as well as trying to improve the quality of health and life of those affected. However, there can be challenges as well as ethical problems that the mental health / medical provider can face in these situations.

One challenge can come in the form of using pharmaceuticals to help the patient deal with some of the symptoms that cause difficulty in their lives. While studies do suggest that medication makes a bigger impact on an individual's symptoms, the issue is not that black and white. How the patient and/or their family feels about medical care in general (or mental health medication specifically) has an effect on how the medication is used and therefore, how successful it can be. An individual's culture may also weigh into the decision to use medical treatments/ medicine of any kind. And how the services are provided might also affect the utilization of those services. Language, economics, and other barriers can cause misunderstandings and challenges as well. A perfect example of this problem can be found in the book, “The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down” written by Anne Fadiman. An amazing and very sad biography.

Another thing that is very important for the provider to acknowledge and understand is that the trauma itself may be what the provider wishes to treat and focus on... but the provider is still treating a person. An individual with different perceptions, biases, experiences and other ways of seeing and moving through the world. And so while trying to treat the troublesome symptoms of the past trauma, it is imperative that the person being treated isn't seen in the narrow sense as a label or a diagnosis. The patient needs to be viewed and looked at in the 'prism' of their views and life... so recommendations and therapies need to be available to the patient in a way that fits their current set of circumstance and needs. I thought of an experience in my life when I had a few sick animals who lived with me and my family in a one room yurt. The vet said that one cat needed to be fed a special food, another cat needed a different special food and the other cats couldn't eat either food. When I mentioned that I lived in one room, I was told to deal with it. I did figure out a solution that worked, but it took a while and I didn't use the resources that had been offered nor have I been back to that clinic. I probably would have felt differently and used the resources offered if the provider had made them seem possible. Just a thought on that topic.... So making sure that the resources used are more helpful than stressful and really address the 'whole person' are needed. That takes more time and energy as well as an understanding of an an attempt to put your own biases, etc... aside. That is a bit difficult to do for most of us. :) Also making sure that the resources are available to use in a way that works for the client makes them more likely to be utilized and more likely to help the patient with lasting change in their lives... which is the goal!

Another important element – which I touched on in the last paragraph is to make sure that a thorough understand of the person and their culture are attained. By understanding what is important to the individual and what they use to not only make decisions but base most of what is important in their life on.... the suggestions and recommendations that are given by the mental health providers are more likely to not only be followed but misunderstandings are more likely to be caught quickly and early in the process. That helps develop the trust relationship between the provider and the patient as well as help the patient to work harder to help themselves because not only does it matter to them as individuals, the provider has shown that it matter to them too. (Aren't we all more likely to accomplish our goals when we have a friendly goal 'buddy'?) So by having decent understanding of the background and viewpoint of the patient, the service providers can make fewer but more meaningful referrals and help keep the patient on task. An example is not suggesting a patient with PTSD have an occasional drink to relax but maybe a cookie or a walk with a friend instead. If the culture sees nightmares and terrors as a curse from God that must be overcome.... then they are much less likely to take the Ambien to sleep nor will their family encourage them to do so. Telling an individual to eat pork or stop smoking for their health when smoking is part of their religious practices or the eating of pork is against their beliefs will either cause total noncompliance or partial uncompliance as the patient will only do it when they feel pressed to do so or have another compelling reason to do so. It is important that the clinician recognizes what his values are and recognize when he is potentially pushing values and cultural norms on the patient and not actual treatment. I know those examples are not mental health related, but I thought they did help me make the point I was attempting to make. :)

Another thing that it is imperative that mental health providers think about when dealing with challenged and refugee populations is to follow the information and tools that have work in the past as evidenced by studies and their own observations and life experience, but to also recognize that the current work that is being done can give good insights into potential therapies simply because if it appears to be currently working, with so few good studies out there.... if every is in agreement to try something new... that has the potential to help victims now as well as future populations. This kind of flexibility to look outside the box but also to be cautious and thoughtful about trying therapies that haven't had a lot of use and study is a challenging but needed trait in these providers. It is also this flexibility that allows the clinician to look at the individual in a well rounded way, and not just the way that they have been taught to see certain symptoms or mental distress.

Lastly, it is important that the clinician recognize and maintain clear boundaries between themselves and their patients so that both parties can work together for improvement and satisfaction. When the boundaries are loosened, both parties may find it very challenging to continue to work together and to work towards progress in the manner that was possible when the division between the two was clearly laid out. Providing services that also allow the individual to have privacy not only from strangers who do not have a legitimate need to know their information, but also family can also help the patient by making things clearer and less likely to be misunderstood through another person's biases and thoughts mixing into the mix. An example could be when the parties involved have a language barrier – a translator from outside the patients inner circle may make a different translation that a family member or a friend who may interpret what the patient is saying or needs based on what they think the patient needs... not quite the same thing. This kind of translation can also compromise a patient's need and right for confidentiality making services more challenging for them to get and undermining the trust needed between the patient and the provider. The provider must also to make sure to care for and recognize problems that may crop up with themselves from working with this population and take care to not allow themselves to become burned out or harmed in the process of helping others... which can cause them to be unable to continue to help or even to cause more trauma to the patient.

To be a provider to such a challenged population comes with both risks and rewards for the clinician and the patients. Understanding the important ethical concerns that should be addressed can help everyone involved do a better job, be safer, and to help people gain more resiliency and a better quality of life through the therapies. What more can we ask for? :)

A Sabbath Experience...

Wow. I have so many adjectives to describe today in my mind, but this Sabbath cannot fairly be described as restful or a 'day of rest'. It's funny, but if you attend any church I cannot imagine that you have much rest at all. If you have children, then there is no possibility that the Sabbath is a day of rest. And for those of us with callings at church, those callings-even when enjoyable and fun- are learning experiences and as such are often work.

I will admit that Sundays for the last few years have always been a great deal of work. Taking Bug to church, getting us through the day and home along with the joys and responsibility of helping my friend Sarah Drew left me fairly wiped out. The pressure and work load was intense and after some Sundays of carrying 40+ pounds on my shoulders for two hours plus helping Sarah I will admit that I didn't really feel the spirit much at all. The struggle was just too great. And the weariness was manifested in almost everyday of my life as I would struggle and fight to stay awake any time I was at all stationary-while driving, while eating... even while driving a car.

In so many ways, Sundays have changed over the last year. I no longer have a best friend to sit with and I no longer have the struggle with Bug. I come to the building an hour before church and I open the library. I copy the programs and the inserts. I choose the items to change and put up front for checkout – the DVD's, new books, etc... I prepare the Sacrament kits and help people get what they need for their lessons. When the meeting starts, I close up and get up the courage to join into the group in the chapel... to reconcile myself to learning, to listening... to feeling alone in the crowd. If needed I also give of the time and my energy to help others with their children... to hug them, distract them, to quiet them... and to love them. That is my average typical Sunday. The work is different and is less physically exhausting than I used to do, but I would be lying if I didn't suggest that it isn't work. The secrets I bring and the burden and emotion and pain are just as much of a struggle in many ways. Heck, sometimes the weight of the pain and emotions and my silence feels somehow heavier than the weight of my son riding along on my shoulders for the hours on end as I bounced him quietly and tried to keep him silent in the past.

In some ways, this Sunday was no different. I had all of these tasks as well as my burdens, but one of my choices and circumstances today very much added to the stress of the day. One circumstance was that my phone broke and so I didn't arrive as early as I usually do... so I lost track of time and was only about 1/2 an hour early. When I arrived, I found that things were actually a bit chaotic and so I started my work by trying to hunt down the program and then racing to the supermarket to buy gluten free bread after it was discovered ten minutes before the meeting started that there was none to be found. I was back in twelve minutes (a record I think) and was only three minutes late for the start of the meeting... a stunning achievement, but I will admit not very spiritual. So it was with a relieved heart that I sat down in the foyer on the couch to catch my breath, to think and to try and bring myself back to be ready for the spirit.

However, my choice to sit in the foyer was a big mistake. While well intentioned, I discovered that I then had the difficulty of trying to listen to the talks in Sacrament with the members of one family walking back and forth every few minutes checking the foyer. It was very clear immediately that these members were no willing to enter the meeting, but were also not willing to sit in the foyer while I was sitting there... so they kept checking to see if I had left. The behavior was so obvious that another sister who came out of the meeting to sit in the foyer commented that I really need to apologize for offending these members as I surely must have done for this behavior to continue.... it was so clear to her what their purpose was. I tried to smile and just bite my tongue to continue to keep my silence. And so every time I saw one of them come to check, I would think of getting up to go into the meeting. Not because I felt comfortable or able to do so, but because I felt hounded and hunted and pressed to do so. So I tried to breath deeply and continue to sit... fighting the feelings of fear and anger welling inside and tried to listen. It was almost impossible to glean anything from the talks because it would take me a few minutes to really get myself refocused... and then they were back to see if I had gotten the 'hint' yet.... and the fragile peace in my head was shattered. It is hard to sit through this behavior and not feel like I have done something awful and deserve it... to remember that I have not only done all I can but have bent over backwards to try and make the situation manageable... to remember that in many ways I am the one who was wronged and now struggle to deal with the reality that her choices have helped create for me in my life. So I sat... and I sat... and the meeting finally ended.

I tried to deal with the library and some things there, but when I heard shouting a few minutes later in the foyer, I gave up and walked out. There I found one of the sisters yelling at the missionaries to force the child playing the organ in the chapel to stop- it was apparently inappropriate. (Frankly, yelling at the missionaries and in the church was inappropriate, but I digress. ; ) So I went into the chapel to see one of my favorite summer visitors happily playing the piano and celebrating song and church. Adam is a beautiful child with so many difficulties and disabilities and his joy was as obvious as his father's slight embarrassment. So he can't actually play music that we recognize and the composition is his own. Doesn't that make it an even greater gift to the Father? Soon he was distracted and came with me to the library for crackers and I gave him one of my very favorite books. Off to class he headed with his dad, satisfied and ready. And I picked up my stuff, left a message for the branch president, and took off hoping to steal an hour or two of silence for myself.

So many people say that I am strong- my branch president, friends, family... but I don't tend to feel that way. I feel like I am walking on a fragile cord struggling to keep my balance and hoping the cord won't break and send me crashing to the ground. Still, after all this time.... I am not sure about much, but I think I need a redefining of myself and my life. I need a new focus... a way to feel strong. But until then... I guess I keep going. :)

2012 Poetry Corner # 6 : 'Smile'

Smile...
... for a new day is here.

Smile...
... for a life renewed.

Smile...
... for the goodness within you.




Smile...
... for I love you!

Random Thoughts on Oral History, Interviews, and Technique

This week, I spent some time really focusing on the process of getting ready for an oral history interview and what is really involved. I ended up with 13 small paragraphs about different ideas and thoughts on how to interview and collect oral history... and I will share them with you below.

1. The idea of neutrality is described as a skillful way of holding yourself/ body and asking questions that keep the focus at all times on the interviewee and their thoughts and feelings. For instance, having too much rapport or empathy with the interviewee can really side-rail the interview and make it more about you and your feelings and thoughts- and not the person being interviewed... which is certainly not the goal that we are trying to complete(in performing an interview). Also, too much of anything- whether it is emotions, questioning etc... can change the interview and make it more biased, less accurate and focused on the biases, not the whole picture.

2. It is suggested that opening an interview with a question that provokes a detailed answer helps to start an interview with a prompt, purposeful beginning. It lets the interviewee know that the interview has begun and gives both you and the interviewee the cue that you are 'down to business'. Using a question that the interviewee is likely to know and need to give a detailed answer to helps get the interview off on the right track of the interviewee talking... and you listening.. It also should state the main purpose for the interview so that the subject that is to be covered is acknowledged right away.

3. A leading question is a question that sets up the interviewee to answer the question asked in the way that the interviewer seems to wish. This will not necessarily give you the answer you are really looking for. The danger of loaded questions contaminating the interview becomes higher if the 'status' of the interviewer is higher than the 'status' of the interviewee. Loaded questions can also produce answers that are truly difficult for the historian to interpret correctly because the interviewer's bias is so obvious in the original question. To avoid loaded questions, avoid questions that provoke short answers, questions filled with 'emotive' words, and use the interviewers own words to ask more questions- do not make assumptions of what the words mean... ask! Leading questions are less likely to cause problems with the interview near the end of the interview and can be useful when you have had an uncooperative interviewee. At the end you can use these questions to try and pull out more details and get more information. However, even in these situations, keeping the questions as non-'leading' as possible will help to keep the interview unbiased and 'correct.'

4. A negative leading question can be useful for getting comments and thoughts on provocative topics... especially if the historian's research has turned up conflicting information between the research and the information provided in the interview. It is important however, to not use too many of these questions because they can turn the interviewee off of the interview and it is also important to word the question so that the 'challenge' appears to come from a third party and not you- which can cause the interviewee to feel hostile and not as forthcoming towards the interviewer. There are other reasons to be cautious when using a negative leading question, but that covers the important points. They should really only be used when the questions can add to intellectual knowledge and debate or figuring out how the subject deals with adversity.

5. You should only give your opinion when the person being interviewed insists on knowing it. Otherwise, your opinion isn't really important in this instance. Your opinion can only help to bias the interview or even divide you from the person you are interviewing. Even when asked, the interviewer can sometimes use the words in the question to turn the interviewee back to the focus of the interview... and take the focus off of you!

6. Follow up questions are used by the historian to really get the details that you are attempting to have the interviewee provide. Ask for understanding when you feel that something is vague. However, the historian must be very careful to not make the interview feel like the subject is getting the 'third degree'. Questions should be open and indirect... without looking like you are challenging the other person. Some interviews can be fairly useless when they are completed in such a way that followup questions are not really asked.

7. Background research is so useful for a few reasons. Research ahead of time can help you to determine bias or untruthfulness in your potential interviewee. The information can help you during the interview to understand the information that you are being given, help to keep the interview 'on topic', and help you to provide 'useful' leading questions as well as memory nudges for the interviewee that is having a hard time remembering specific things/details. Background details are especially good for helping your interviewee with introspection and helping the individual remember what they 'felt' or 'thought' in the past during certain situations.

8. Approaching a friend or family member about an interview would be done differently than an interview with someone you did not know. First, you already have some rapport with the person that you have developed through your personal relationship. Ignoring your previous relationship while performing an interview would make the interview confused, stilted and any attempt to be 'neutral' would look a little ridiculous. :) However, the interviewer/historian must also carefully analyze the person that they are interviewing and modify their (the historian's) behavior and questions accordingly. Again the interview is about the information and the interviewee and not about you or your relationship with the 'interviewed'. Keeping the interview on track, easy going... but as neutral as possible and focused is the key. The interviewer needs to exercise self restraint in some instances and use rapport, empathy and neutrality to get the information that is sought.

9. Oral history is different from journalism in several ways. Oral history is the legal property of the person/interviewee and can only be used with that person's permission. Oral historians usually try to solve this problem by having a release signed when they complete the interview. Journalists rarely ask for consent to publish and as such they are less likely to get people to truly open up about sensitive personal information. As oral history usually contains such personal information, historians should make no assumptions about publication unless they have consent. Journalists also have the option to bias results in ways that oral historians should not. A journalist can use correct materials in such as way to create a bias in one direction or for political expediency. But while that is not OK for a journalist, many journalists will still do it for reasons of expediency, etc... A historian, in an ideal situation, will not allow societal bias, personal beliefs, etc... to influence the information that he is presenting. The historian will do their best to make sure that the information is as neutral and bias free as possible so that the most accurate picture will be presented. A journalist has the responsibility to report and may use personal information in a way that the person may not feel comfortable with. A historian has the responsibility to do more than just protect the source- if the information is not useful for the current public good and can cause undue injury to those involved, the historian should keep the information safe for a good number of years until the information is can be used in a way that doesn't cause a lot of damage to living people.

10. It is suggested that release forms should be simple and informal... and if you write one yourself... keep it from being legalistic. While some people think the forms should be signed before the interview... it is generally recognized that after the interview process is the best time to do so. While, after the interview you might have problems with a recalcitrant interviewee who has changed his mind, doing the signing before the interview can inhibit the person to be interviewed. Making promises to the one that is interviewed is difficult as well because it may be difficult for you to keep the promises. History can and should belong to everyone so promising that it will not is just one promise that is difficult to keep.

11. Background research itself can raise ethical issues that the historian has to deal with. When you are doing research on living people, you may discover information that is clearly confidential and private. It is important that you realize that specific permission must be gotten for releasing this information- even if you broke no laws to get it. It is very important that the historian does their best to not breach people's privacy or release information that can cause undue harm.

12. It has been mentioned that maintaining a neutral stance during an interview is hard and appears to be manipulative and dehumanizing if you perform tactical and careful planning ahead of time. The idea of neutrality is very important and should be carefully considered, but should not be taken the the other extreme which can inhibit the interview. The historian must remember that being neutral should not cause you to behave unethically or even anti-socially. Making sure that the interview situation is about the interviewee, and not about the interviewer. Keeping things confidential, being sensitive and empathetic, helps to keep the interview unbiased and truly humanistic. Neutrality should be used to gather information and not hinder the gathering... but it also should be slowly put aside if needed to increase communication and understanding by making interpretation. I hope that makes some sense.

13. When interpreting and analyzing your interview, it is important that you treat the conversation and information as serious, important information. Some historians believe that any interpretation of someone else's words is possible inappropriate and ethically challenging.... and a full transcript must be released. Others suggest that the historian, by reinterpreting the interview, puts themselves in a place of higher significance, and that releasing the interview as a full transcript is the only way that the interviewer and the interviewee are on 'the same plane'. Other say that there is always interpretation and if you assert that the interpretation of the historian is unethical, that is 'tantamount' to saying that the interview should have never taken place. I suspect what is being said is that care must be taken to be objective when attempting to interpret an interview... and that the historian should be aware of bias- especially their own.

14. The interview should be put into context if you are planning on using it for a term paper or for general consumption. One reason for this is that reading about someone you do not know can be confusing... and even boring. Most people understand that no life is perfect and is affected by the society and culture around it. So adding the history that affects the person's life is so important and makes the interview interesting and draws the attention of not only historians, but other people.

Oral History and Thoughts on the Individual

For this post, I really wanted to take the time to dissect how individuals and their personalities clash and mesh with both culture and society when collecting historical research from others I have broken the post into three sections: Individual/Personality, Culture, and Society.

Individual/Personality

There are many reasons that it is important to focus on the individual when looking and studying history. First, it is the 'individual' that makes history. Yes, most of history focuses on rich, royal and upper class individuals, as well as powerful religious leaders (or leaders with huge followings) and only a few of them at that. But the history of even large countries has been forced to include individuals that do not fit those classifications. A few nameable examples are: Joan of Arc of France, Rasputin of Russia, and Martin Luther King in the United States. Second, all of us as human beings are making history as we live. Yes, maybe our history will be noticed by few and cared about by even less. But if we look at our actions and our behavior, it directly effects those in its path. My tiny town of Brooklin has made national news a few times for its behavior that I know of... and both of these times- one person's behavior, belief system and ingenuity or stubbornness have been the catalyst for the large event. I have been told that the local soup kitchen would have closed a few months ago if one person had not stepped in. One person in the right position systematically denied disabled children a good education and fought and insulted parents in his attempt to save money in my area. Now he is retired and living in the same town... and seems confused that he is 'not well respected'. His handiwork can be seen by anyone dealing with the children in our town... and little pleasure is taken I assure you. I am sure that there are so many other examples, but individuals and individual's lives do clearly change the world, culture and society around them. An individual can describe a social and cultural situation that he has been involved in... and see it differently from the other twenty who experienced it... and the other individuals who were indirectly affected by the situation.

Taking the time to learn about individuals and their distinct personality bents gives you clues about how a person thinks about the world and where their biases and perceptions lie. Keeping an open mind and truly trying to understand the person that we wish to collect information from will help give our information more meaning. The information that someone gives on a topic will vary in so many ways, including their general way of looking at things, people involved and how the individual felt about them, ways it affected the individual or his loved ones/family, how society itself views the situation, how their past history colors how they view the more recent past and present, and how the individual's present situation can color their views on the past. So attempting to understand the person behind the information you seek should become as important as the information itself.

Some questions that would be useful to consider when trying to decide if someone makes a good person to interview can be easily summed up. Determining if the person is honest, able to try and deal objectively with the past, and other personal information about the interviewee is key. Does the individual have anything to lose by objectivity? Is the individual able to be objective about things that caused great pain or hardship? How does the individual view his life and those around him? Determining an individual's unique traits and how a person reacts to people, his environment, joy and hardship, etc... give us clues about how accurate the interview itself will be... and how useful.

There are a few reasons that truly understanding an interviewee's family life and social situation are important when collecting oral history. Understanding how the individual has lived, grown up, choices they have made such as marriage and children, and the social environment in which that person has had to make life changing decisions will not only help shape our questions to better fit the individual's probable experience (not useful to ask a poor individual who lived all of their life in California what the White House was like to visit during their lifetime unless you are sure they went there!) If you are asking the interviewee what the individual Jeffery Dahmer was like, you will surely get a different viewpoint based on interviewing his parents or neighbors... or the parents of one of his victims. An individual who has been raised in poverty and managed to scramble out of it to an upper class existence may think that welfare is useless because everyone else could do what he did, or may recognize that his circumstances were helped by others, etc... knowing how this individual thinks, currently lives and has lived gives us important cues when using the individual as a source to collect oral history.

Culture

Culture helps the historian to place individual facts into a greater context by looking at the different groups that individuals can belong to in order to help us understand the different cultures... and have a window of understanding into the people that we are interviewing. Culture is usually behaviors that are shared by individual groups. And as culture must be taught or learned through an individual's life experience, we as historians can truly understand culture only by learning it from other people. A book can only go so far in this regard. So, by looking at individual experience and comparing them to others in the same group, we can learn a lot about the experience itself, but the collective group experience and how culture can affect the group experience itself.

The word 'ordinary' suggests a faceless void. It is also almost demeaning and seems to suggest that anything ordinary shares the same background and story. However, this is not true. Ordinary people- as opposed to celebrities or very powerful people- tend to exist in shadow in a historical perspective, but that does not mean that these lives are even similar let alone the same. These 'shadow' individuals can tell us a great deal of what life is like for many that are not in the limelight. People who live complicated and earth changing lives that are not in the newspapers. In some instances such as studying social changes, the ordinary man will necessarily give better answers than the powerful or the celebrity- as the famous will be more untouched by grassroots changes. The ordinary man can show us the emotions and turmoil of change as it happens, one person at a time. The ordinary person can help us to see what tiny, minute emotions and behaviors and movement go into the large scale version of social change. Without these 'collages' of information from people who have lived in the very 'trenches' of history, we will not have a truly accurate picture of history... and we certainly will not have one that we can understand on a truly human level.

Inner facts are so important because they can fill in the gaps that basic knowledge can never fill. Reading that something is bad is a fact, but someone who was there telling and describing to you how bad it was adds an element that helps to cement the fact as true... and brings genuine understanding. The key to truly understanding events such as defining social moments is also in the concept 'inner facts'. Casual observation can give us the knowledge that a transportation strike is happening in France... but why? Why the strike? Why now? What brought the idea and organization into being? Who started it?

The importance of putting 'inner facts' into their historical perspective cannot be overstated. If the historian or reader is unable to understand what the facts that are presented really mean, they will not end up meaning much about the original topic. Certainly oral history not in context can tell us about humanity and emotions and the basic human dilemmas... but when placed within an appropriate historical context we can learn how the emotions were evoked, what the suffering or joy really, truly meant, and how the emotions and behavior made the changes that the individual did or helped make the changes of an individual together with a collective whole. And the information given by one individual about an experience and then added to the stories of others, can give us a rich and diverse picture of not only the event in question, but the culture that the event happened in as well.

Standardized questionnaires have a few problems, but the biggest one is that no individual is truly 'standard'. So a standardized questionnaire will not glean much information that is truly detailed and can only glean 'standard' responses. To get detailed information, we must ask someone in their own words to describe something... and not trap them into using our words which may not get us the information that we seek. Any question is also subject to an individuals interpretation of the question... and again, humans are not standard. Language and the past can color what words mean to people and so they can also change how a question is interpreted. (An example is I grew up thinking that the word 'couple' meant three or more-except when discussing human couples. So a 'couple' of sandwiches always meant three or more to me- until last year. When I finally realized the reason for past misunderstandings when using the word, I have actively worked to change the definition in my mind. But until then, I would have used the word incorrectly!)

The term 'thick description' can be defined as a very careful and detailed description. A thick description will usually help to uncover a person's reasons and motives for behavior and will also usually give cultural information and context. It can give you ideas for questions that you would never have thought to ask based upon your own cultural bias and can give insight into situations that you as the historian may never have heard of in your own culture. These descriptions can also give insight into how culture has changed over time and ways that society or local communities have changed as a result.

Society

Society is the name given to the human world of interactions and living that are important in determining some of our behavior and the behavior of the people around us. Society forces us for instance to wear clothing... but culture may help determine what type of clothing that we wear. Society includes the human community, how we interact together and our relationships with each other. Both society and culture- while distinctively different- are very interrelated and influence each other. Our culture may be shaped by society and culture itself can, in turn, help shape the society around it. However, society is what 'surrounds' us and where we live... culture is what is in us and how we live.

To really get a good grasp of social history, oral history and other qualitative sources should be used because they will provide the details that will truly make the social history developed and not just a brief outline of time. Brief pieces do not give us a picture of what it was like to be truly human during that time frame and so 'his-story' becomes dry, uninteresting, and also unable to be used to see how humanity has changed or not changed today. Social history without culture or other sources simply becomes a basic black 'outline' and the contents are not clear until they are filled in with the hues of personality, humanity, emotions, and behaviors of individual people. As Hoopes states, qualitative sources bring history to life and reveal its significance and meaning- which help to give history meaning.

Historians should use both types of sources if they truly wish to get a full picture of what they are studying. Using both types of sources makes more difficult projects probably more successful. The two source types can also help to find more information for 'smaller' projects than there would usually be if only quantitative sources are used. Using both sources not only helps make the history more clear and more interesting, but it also helps to make it more accurate as you can compare the sources to see where they agree, disagree and are different or compliment each other. Then the historian can compare the differences and look for other sources to help determine accuracy and why there are differences- something that the historian could not do if it was not recognized that there were differences.

It is important to understand how society impacts groups and individuals for a few reasons. One (and the most important personally) is the need to understand that society does affect us as individuals in our daily lives- whether we understand or pay attention to that reality or not. Another reason is that many individuals are very likely to believe that their personal history really isn't 'important' history, but the tasks of working at jobs, raising families, attending school, etc... contain the marks of the society in which the individual lives/lived. And so, no matter how isolated the individual sees themselves from society around them, they are not... and understanding the different ways that society affects groups and individuals helps to develop understanding and interpret sources.

Many people choose to interview their family members because finding another 'family' to interview that is willing to put up with your nosiness and be as honest with you can be quite difficult. Another benefit is that you will have some basic knowledge of the individuals and personalities involved and so you will better be able to quickly understand what family members would be better for interviewing, which family members might be unreliable, and where the different biases might be a problem. You might also have a better understanding of questions that you want to ask. You also have the added benefit of adding to your knowledge of your family, your heritage and the history intertwined with it all. This kind of project can give greater personal awareness and understanding to the historian about their life, their role in their family and how their family has developed and changed over time.

One problem of interviewing family members is that family members may not always see the information that they have about themselves and their history as important. You, as the historian, must try and get the details of their lives and they may be hesitant to share them with you. They might also have reasons that they prefer not to share information with family members.... maybe things that they have been hiding. Convincing these individuals that it is a good idea to share and even give some details of certain circumstances may be very hard indeed. Some ways to overcome these problems is to know the individual being interviewed really well so that you can address the individual's concerns and also determine if the individual would even make a good interviewee.

Social history defined is a way of looking at history that includes the history of 'ordinary' people, how they lived, and attempts to look at history from the point of view of social trends, movements, etc... Quantitative history is an approach to the study of history that uses physical countable evidence- numbers, tax forms, statistics, etc... as primary sources for facts. A quantitative fact can be measured and 'solidified'. Qualitative history are facts that can be debatable- there are internal facts and are facts that give us understanding of human behavior and not just the behavior itself. It gives you the why the behavior happened and other intangible facts that while harder to pin down- are facts.

Conclusion

So, the term 'society' refers to the idea that we live among other people who have some forms of power to permit us to do some things and stop us from doing others. Culture is defined as the intellectual influences that enable us to see some possible avenues of behavior and refuse to do or see other ideas... and personality is the individual response to the cultural and societal influences around us and how we individually interpret these avenues and expectations and conduct ourselves accordingly- or not, based on our own decision making, learned or innate cues, etc... These three terms (society, culture and personality) describe separate ideas that in some ways can be teased out separately from the other two terms. Yet, like triplets, while they are separate entities, each of these terms describes ideas and behavior that are interwoven together and so... they cannot totally be separated except on a vague and less informative basis. Society and culture can help define people and even how they see themselves, but personality can change and mold culture... which can change society. Or personalities can change social 'expectations' and in doing so change the larger picture of culture and society. So each of these ideas clash and mesh depending on different factors.

What do you think? Do you disagree with anything that I have written? Let's discuss! :)

Comparing Society and Culture... to a Tootsie Pop!

So my teacher gave me a fun assignment that I thought I would post here and see what other people thought. The first paragraph will contain the definitions of society, culture and personality/the individual. The next is the fun part! :)

This one is tough to really work out in my head and explain- at least satisfactorily to me! Society refers to the idea that we live among other people who have some forms of power to permit us to do some things and stop us from doing others. Culture is defined as the intellectual influences that enable us to see some possible avenues of behavior and refuse to do or see other ideas... and personality is the individual response to the cultural and societal influences around us and how we individually interpret these avenues and expectations and conduct ourselves accordingly- or not based on our own decision making, learned or innate cues, etc... These three terms (society, culture and personality) describe separate ideas that in some ways can be teased out separately from the other two terms. Yet, like triplets, while they are separate entities, each of these terms describes ideas and behavior that are interwoven together and so... they cannot totally be separated except on a vague and less informative basis. Society and culture can help define people and even how they see themselves, but personality can change and mold culture... which can change society. Or personalities can change social 'expectations' and in doing so change the larger picture of culture and society. So each of these ideas clash and mesh depending on different factors.

OK- know for the fun!

I first have to admit... that I didn't do the tootsie pop or blow pop eating exercise. I know of very little candy that is gluten free so I didn't even think of risking it. But... I will give it a shot! I must also admit that the most jarring and significant quote from this week's reading was in chapter four and was 'statistics don't bleed'. Gosh, how true is that! Only emotions- whether positive or negative can truly convey the feelings behind statistics. Truly, a number is nothing much by itself toward understanding.

But back to the tootsie pop. The outer candy shell would remind me of culture and society. The color and flavor would stand for culture and the sugar and sweetness would stand for society. When just glanced over, there almost doesn't appear to be a difference between the two and when licked, you might only separate them slightly. The flavor of strawberry might be separate in your mind from the 'sweet'- only if you are mindfully licking of course. :) This candy shell is thick and you might be very tempted to just eat the shell and throw the middle... or the individual away. Also, you can buy many different colors or cultures and so flavors and levels of sweetness may vary. But while the individual tastes different and looks different... it adds the best perspective on the lollipop or culture itself. For the culture and society can change, but the variety and diversity of the individual remains the same- high quality, long lasting and memorable. But neither the culture or the society would be interesting without each other. The flavor of culture is bitter without sugar... and the sweetness of society is frankly boring without diversity. The individual brings out the flavor and sweetness of the culture/society... and makes it worth living in. Also , as the individual is different it is flexible... in ways that society and culture may not be. Only through the flexibility of the middle or the individual... can the culture or society change.


It is so important to understand how these groups or ideas work together to present a complex picture of diversity, beauty and tastiness that give us a true picture and understanding of the whole- which raises the value and importance of the information to us. Otherwise, we might be tempted to ignore or not 'eat' the information as we will be ignorant of the joys and knowledge that can be found in the patient lick, lick, lick of information to get us to the most knowledgeable and interesting core.


So what do you think? Would you describe it differently? How so... and do you agree with my analogy or to simplistic. Be creative and have fun!

A Boost!

I got a heck of a compliment today from a college professor- she was already my very favorite, but this really, really made my day! So I thought I would share. Some parts of my life are having some serious challenges, but I am doing OK at school. :)

December 9, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing on behalf of Badgerdown who has been a student in my 400 level online Discovering and Interpreting Local History course this fall. Badgerdown is an excellent student. Her work is always of the highest quality and she contributes greatly to class discussion. Many times, she has started the discussion on the discussion board and her classmates respond very well to her comments. She is also very helpful and supportive of her classmates in adding her own insights to what they have said. She responded to her classmate’s posts immediately with student introductions which helped me to create a virtual classroom experience. I think that Badgerdown and her classmates have become well acquainted with one another even though they have never met one another. Badgerdown’s work ethic, attitude and passion for history helped to make this happen.

Badgerdown’s work has been thoughtful, analytical and well written. She is a motivated student who completes her work and is willing to interact with the professor on a regular basis. Even though Badgerdown and I have never met, we correspond several times a week. I believe that Badgerdown has added so much to this class based on her own family history research experience and I believe that she has taught me as much as I have taught her. When I ask her a question or a classmate asks her a question about her experiences, she is very willing to answer the question and there have been times when she has gone online and found information that she has then shared with the class; this was never a requirement of the class, but I appreciated her wanting to help and to answer questions.
I consider Badgerdown to be an excellent candidate for your honors program. If she were an UMPI student, I would encourage her to be in the UMPI honors program and I would encourage her to become a history major so that I could have her as a student in more of my classes. When my colleagues ask me if I miss classroom interaction by teaching online, I tell them no and I then give Sonia as an example of the caliber of student I have found through my online courses. I look forward to reading Badgerdown’s comments on discussion board and her papers because she is such a good student and she contributes so much to both her classmates and to me. I highly recommend Badgerdown to your program.
Sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
University of Maine at Presque Isle

This is one of the most positive letters I have ever received in the sense that I am painted in such a good light. That isn't something I have grown used to... but I think I would like to hear good thoughts like this more often. I am going to celebrate with a sushi dinner tonight and enjoy the confidence and sense of worth that I have built up this semester. :)

To Struggle....

I love my son so much. It is sometimes such a struggle to watch him struggle... to watch his brain and body spin out of control when his parents are emotionally troubled. He is so beautiful and such a kind and empathetic soul. He has so many talents and so many people tend to only see his difficulties... and never see his soul underneath... just begging to be loved. He wants so much and his body just can't keep up all the time and he gets so confused by some things. As I pray sometimes, tears pouring down my face, asking the Father to help my son I feel so much that I can't describe. It can be so confusing to me to as I look at him and I feel this overwhelming love for him, this pain for his struggles, the physical pain from sometimes getting in the way at the wrong time, and sometimes even anger that the struggle is so hard for all of us. As Alma says – 'Behold I say unto you, I cannot say the smallest part of what I feel.'



I am so blessed to be his mother and I am so grateful for all the lessons that he teaches me and I am grateful for the opportunity to be a mom. But sometimes I am tired and I feel so weary of the struggle that I feel almost too sorry to do anything other than sit and cry. The last few months have been such a trial and pressing on has been sometimes more of a habit than a joy. But then I try to remember:

'Yea, I know that I am nothing; as to my strength I am weak; therefore I will not boast of myself, but I will boast of my God, for in his strength I can do all things; yea, behold, many mighty miracles we have wrought in his land for which we will praise his name forever.'

My family is truly blessed.

History of a Song: October - “How Firm a Foundation”

This is one of the earliest 'hymns' that I remember learning at church. I had the experience (and I think others probably have as well) of growing up in the church and finding over the first several years comfort in the playing of a 'familiar' song in the meetings. Most of the songs that are taught in Primary are not hymns that are regularly sung in any of the other church meetings. So your 'favorites' tend to be the few songs that are especially well liked with your ward chorister or the few songs that are universally popular throughout most of the English speaking Mormon church. I also liked that the song was upbeat- so many hymns are slow and if you do know have a good testimony of the words and a strong background in reading music, you can find yourself mouthing nothingness trying to pick out words and wrapping your brain around the unfamiliar lyrics and rhythm.

This hymn is believed to have been written by a man named Robert Keen and it is believed to have first been brought to the United States by Dr. John Rippon, a Baptist minister from London, England. There is dispute on who wrote it because the only original copy known to exist came with Dr Rippon and it was signed only with a 'K'. The composer of the musical accompaniment is not known but it is thought that the music was written in 1787. It is also believed that this hymn was written based upon the scripture verses found in Isaiah 43:1-7.

One of the reasons that I love this song is that it seems to me to be impossible to not find comfort and encouragement from listening to or singing this hymn. This song is so powerful to me that I have sometimes been unable to sing it and have found myself sitting or standing with my eyes closes listening... just listening... and it feels as if the last few verses are being sung just to me. A personal message from Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.... that they care and have all of their thoughts and energies concentrated on me... I don't feel like one of the large number that in reality I am :)

Fear Not, I am with thee; Oh be not dismayed!
For I am thy God, and will still give thee aid;
I'll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand
Upheld by my righteous, omnipotent hand

When through the deep waters I call thee t go,
the rivers of sorrow shall not thee o'erflow
For I will be with thee, thy troubles to bless,
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress


And I do not think that I am alone in these thoughts. This song is sung in hundreds of Christian churches around the world, in many different denominations and languages. It has been the favorite song of many and has been sung at the funerals of quite a few famous Americans including Robert E. Lee, President Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Andrew Jackson. This song is #85 in the current LDS songbook. It has also been produced by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and other misc Christian artists including Fernando Ortega.

If you have any thoughts, inspiration, or experiences you would like to share from your life that are related to this song, please do so. :)

Scripture Study: Pearl of Great Price Moses 1:35

Sometimes I feel like I am just another ant on this planet rushing around and killing myself with work- much of which isn't eternally useful. So sometimes I feel myself get lost in the scriptures because I can sit and do 'nothing'... OK, well maybe not nothing :) A few days ago, I just randomly picked them up and flipped to the back. Moses chapter one fell open and I began to read. One verse really stuck out at me:

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

I have thought about it in quiet moments over the last few days. No matter how busy and infinitely small I feel... "all things are numbered unto me".

No one is alone- no matter how much we feel that we are. Our lives and souls are known. We are great spiritual beings who are dealing with the difficulty of being a human being. What a great thought!

The 'Worst Shark Attack Ever' - An Example of Human Failure and an Easy Scapegoat

"I thought that I had done everything I could, but maybe I could have done more" - from an interview with a survivor of the U.S.S. Indianapolis

The most famous of all shark attacks occurred in July of 1945. I must start by saying that as much as I love sharks.... as much as I am fascinated by them... as much as I would dearly love the opportunity one day to face one and watch one swim in its habitat.... this story brings tears and horror to my heart. I can not even attempt to imagine the fear, the waiting, and everything that the survivors faced. In many ways, those that died were so lucky in that it ended. I cannot imagine endless hours of heat and water and sun and then hours of cold and water and dark interspersed with no food and no water and no way to calm the thoughts in your head. I am not good at that anyway - despair has become so easy over the years of trial and turmoil. And in many ways, those that died took the easy way out for those that survived have so much to teach us. And we have so much to learn. And so little of what we have to learn was about sharks. This may be known as the most famous shark attack in history, but so little of its lessons are truly about sharks. They are more about us and the frailty and courage of the human spirit. They are about how humans think and how we react to adversity.

The U.S.S. Indianapolis delivered an atomic bomb and while on its way to meet up with some other ships, it was hit by two Japanese torpedoes around midnight. The ship sunk within 12 minutes with only 900 of the men aboard able to get off out of 1196 total. By dawn of the next day, sharks had begun to appear. There were very few rafts so most survivors were in life jackets that were designed for about 72 hours worth of use. The survivors were in the water in groups (slowly drifting) for four days and five nights before rescuers came. Some groups did have shark attacks- others never saw a shark attack a living human at all. All thse survivors had to deal with the extreme heat during the day, cold during the night, and the constant exposure of both with little food or water if any. By the time that the rescuers showed up only 317 men were still alive.

The first two hundred deaths are believed to be from injuries caused from escaping the sinking ship. Donald McCall, one of the survivors, when interviewed discussed the pain of jumping from the boat to the water... 60-70 feet below him. He felt that 'his body was being torn in half'. With that many dead people around as well as the living, it is not surprising that sharks did come to investigate. And with only a few exceptions, the sharks were content to eat the dead. After a day or two the sharks were less shy and were willing to try and pick off people on the extremities of the groups. However, it is believed that only about two dozens deaths could be attributed to shark attack (out of almost 900). After the first deaths from injuries sustained from evacuating the ship, the men died from numerous complications. Some died from giving up and drinking the sea water- they would usually die within about five hours sometimes with an hour or two of delirium and hallucinations. Some men got hallucinations and delusions from the extreme exposure, stress and fear. Some crew members died from being attacked by their own groups as members would have hallucinations and fight the people around them or sometimes fights would break out as people attempted to stop other men from drinking the sea water. Disillusionment would also cause fights and contributed to a high level of injury or even death. While some groups did have problems with sharks, others such as the group that was held together by Dr. Hanes lost 300 men to death, but none of the deaths was due to shark attack. George Burgess, a shark expert and the director of the Florida Program for Shark Research from the University of Florida, studied and interviewed as many of the survivors as he could. His estimate is about 12 dozen deaths from shark attack, 500+ from exposure, drowning, salt poisoning, etc..., about 200 from initial evacuation injuries and the remainder of death are attributed to the men who were unable to get off the ship. So while this naval disaster – the worst naval disaster ever in U.S. History- did have problems with sharks, the tales of 'mass shark feeding frenzies' are truly over exaggerated. George Burgess states that in doing this research, he discovered that the 'sharks behaved the way sharks are supposed to behave in their natural environment'.

Unfortunately, the rescue of these men doesn't end the sad and horrifying tale. Later it was discovered that the Navy command knew that this ship was missing and did nothing. They received the distress signal and did... nothing. The survivors were spotted four days later on accident by a passing plane. The public announcement of the disaster was made two weeks later- politically timed to be overshadowed by the announcement of the Japanese surrender. The Captain of the ship, Captain McVay, was then blamed for the accident and court martialed. Later evidence was released that showed he was a scapegoat and that others sent his ship out knowing that the area was not safe, refused his requests for a safety escort, and later ignored evidence in his favor to allow for his successful prosecution. (In 2000, the Japanese commander of the submarine that sunk the U.S.S. Indianapolis and who was a witness as McVay's trial said of the trial - "I had a feeling it was contrived from the beginning." This trial effectively ended his career, but did not end the hate mail and painful phone calls dealing with this event. In 1968, Captain McVay committed suicide with his Navy-issued revolver. Not until several years later, did declassified documents show not only his innocence, but the true and horrifying failures by the Navy mentioned above. In October 2000, President Clinton signed a resolution passed by Congress that ...Captain McVay's record should state that "he is exonerated for the loss of Indianapolis."

The stories of the survivors are of personal courage, fortitude, perseverance – not just stories of sharks and what they do. And the lessons of politics, betrayal, and sacrifice are lessons that we need to keep in mind today as we watch our politicians make decisions for us. We need to remember that sometimes, decisions are made that are truly what is best for the well placed minority and not for the majority of individuals... that many individual lives can and will be sacrificed to make one individual's living easier and more comfortable. That should never be tolerated. In the end, the largest shark attack ever was truly the fault of humans. And was compounded by human error, selfishness, and dishonesty. May all of us take a few minutes to sit and remember those that died and remember their suffering...as well as the suffering of those who lived and pledge to help alleviate suffering that we see in the other people that surround us. Let us remember that human failure accounts for much suffering. Let us remember that we have the power to help. No one else has the power that every individual holds in their own hands. Make it count!