It may sound cynical, but it is an observation that I have gradually found difficult to ignore; influencing others in a particular direction for purely selfish reasons and yet positioning it as a demonstration of one’s love!
Markus had recently relocated to Ghana from the United States with his wife and son. While looking for a house to buy, the family temporarily lodged with his parents-in-law. The location offered proximity to the new high school of the children. The location was also central enough in that it provided ready access to important locations. But society being what it is, the gossip machine was soon activated; why live in your in-laws’ house, what is the problem if you ‘hustle’ a bit in an inconvenient location while settling down, why prefer the comfortable life?
None factored in the fact that Eunice, Markus’s wife was pregnant and needed no added transportation and other related stress. None considered that this decision was actually right for the family. None valued the fact that having been away for so long, living in close proximity was providing excellent opportunities for family bonding and relationships.
In due course, Markus and Eunice settled in their own apartment. It was at this time that the real motivations underlying the criticisms emerged; all along, the root cause of Markus’s family had been discomfort that the fact of their son living with their in-laws not only reflected badly on them, but might have been considered an indictment on Markus’ parents’ perceived accomplishments in life. Perhaps if they had a big house, Markus might have lived with them instead and then they would not have complained because they would have felt better.
In essence therefore, the ‘concern’ was not genuinely about Markus or his family’s welfare for that matter, but about themselves.
Support for the mentally-ill
I recently learnt from a psychiatrist friend of mine how a particular ethnic group in Ghana has no record of mental ill-health. Knowing the statistic about how one in every four individuals could suffer an episode of mental ill health, I found this profoundly puzzling. Unravelling my confusion, he explained that because of the stigma placed on mental health by society, this ethnic group happily banished all family members with mental conditions from the home unto the streets. Further, these individuals suffering these conditions were not counted as members of the family. So in taking a medical history, they would reduce the number of children/siblings by one, without necessarily considering it a lie or misinformation.
The family is embarrassed. The family is in denial. The family blames the unwell family member for stubborn or pretentious behaviour, never once accepting that mental health is far closer than we all care to admit and that appropriate medical treatment and active social support and integration are effective remedial interventions that yield positive results.
In conversations with some of these families, it soon becomes obvious that the concern is not really about restoring the unwell family member to a reasonably functional status, making him/her the focus, but it is just a selfish focus on how the rest of the family may be perceived poorly by society.
Meanwhile, other family members have their sanity intact. They have their education and jobs intact. They have their cute family intact. You are functional. You are making progress in life. You don’t want to be tainted by the unwell family member. Encountering such persons, I often ask, “Have you ever paused for a minute to ponder what life must mean for the mentally ill whose life has virtually come to an end although they breathe and eat, who may never know the joy of their own families, who may never know fulfilment working in professionally challenging environments?” The least society and close family members can do is to show empathy, love and support to affected family members in their recovery process instead of taking them in frustration to all kinds of camps to be mistreated –chained, starved, beaten – in the name of spiritual healing.
It is or should be about the unwell people, not you and how their lifetime of inconvenience reflects on your bloated ego. It is not about you. Why make it about you?
Showing genuine concern
A child performs poorly in school. Parents are concerned. But upon careful scrutiny, it slowly emerges, that in expressing the ‘concern’, the abiding focus is not a careful examination of the root causes and how the child’s long-term interests may be protected. Rather, an inordinate amount of angst is generated, based on how poor academic performance reflects on the parents’ standing in society. How can highly accomplished professionals, politicians that are household names, multimillionaires, have children that are functioning at the bottom of the academic ladder? And so the high-level drama unfolds with heartache for all.
Of course, not all such expressed ‘concern’ is underpinned by selfish considerations. This article is targeting those that are. It is also calling for a careful examination of self when we as interested parties are purporting to show ‘concern’. It is calling for a critical interrogation of motive – whether we make it about ourselves when the true victims suffer more.
<<Print>>