(no subject)
Jan. 2nd, 2007 06:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
urocyonNow that it's past the solstice, the cloud has lifted quite a bit. I woke up on Christmas Eve with some energy back, and am even feeling livelier overall under the grip of a rotten cold right now. Yay for sunlight!
Besides having energy sapped by the SAD and turning fairly dull for a while there ("Ventured out for groceries, needed a lie-down, read the rest of the day"--gripping tale, that), I've been fairly preoccupied. The annual hibernation seems to be a particularly good time for mulling things over, whether or not one really wants to. :)
Trying to make sense of some reading, along with an urge to figure out why I still seem to be acutely affected by culture shock, led to one realization: I did not grow up in a Western culture, and am not that accustomed to them, period. This may sound blatantly obvious--it does to me, now, and my mother was entirely too amused when I mentioned the realization--but it took me a while to put things together into a pattern that made sense. (As frequently seems to be the case with "should have been obvious" observations!)
This rather good intro, WHAT'S UP WITH CULTURE?, particularly helped get me thinking about some of the crucial ways in which cultures differ. It is aimed at U.S. undergrads studying abroad, and I was particularly struck by many of the examples based on "mainstream American" culture. The attitudes expressed were the same sort that I've been having trouble dealing with all my life, especially here in the U.K. Now, I don't think I'm entirely stupid; I had noticed that I wasn't necessarily understanding where other people were coming from (not to mention how little they were understanding me and my motives) from the time I started into a school system run by--and for--incomers to our area. I just had a hard time putting the pieces together, especially while I was being treated as a very bad person indeed for expressing attitudes that, erm, were rooted in a very different culture. (One True Way-ism, if I ever saw it.) With a little more grounding and a good bit of curiosity, I read some John Mohawk* and Barbara Mann**, among others. Let's just say that this has helped clarify a lot of things.
I guess I had a hard time believing that any number of people really do find a social hierarchy important, in particular. This is one of the most persistent challenges, from first grade in Radford to this afternoon in Sainsbury's. I may understand it a little better now, but I still have trouble dealing with the constant jockeying for social position and dominance that, yes, you do see a lot of here. If I am polite, I am recognizing you as a fellow being, not showing some peculiar form of deference. With my background, that sort of snarly wolfish behavior actually strikes me as a sign that one has far too much to prove, and I frankly have a hard time taking it seriously. This has led to me getting pushed around and bullied when people do not recognize increasingly frosty politeness as a more acceptable alternative to public throttling. (Ah, more memories of primary school, for that matter.) The feelings of impotence are even more galling when you're 31 than 8, since you have a more reasonable expectation of being able to deal with such situations without actually smacking people. Even understanding what's going on, I still have trouble being "appropriately rude", as it seems.
Ah well, I could go on and on. Throw in universalism vs. particularism, monochronism vs. polychronism, high vs. low context, tendency toward making value judgments/attitudes to diversity, etc., and there's a lot to think about. Gaining a little better understanding of what's involved does seem to be helping.
I was already feeling like an anthropologist while going about my daily life, and it seems that there's another excellent reason for this: I also finally figured out that I'm somewhere on the autistic spectrum. Maybe there is a good reason I keep worrying about coming across as weird and asocial.
Again, this would seem bleedingly obvious (and also was to my mother when I mentioned it on the phone!), especially since multiple people in the family are obviously somewhere on the spectrum. I should be familiar with the idea by now. But, Sid is almost a classic "little professor" type, and my aunt is just very peculiar indeed, much as I love her. Apparently, it's not always so obvious in women, with the gender socialization. Rather, it's not so obvious if you're expecting a woman on the spectrum to act like a man on the spectrum. I mainly look like a clumsy shy person with ADD from Hell. (Or, as my mom put it, "You're not clumsy, you just move too quickly." Erm, yes.) From what I have read thus far, the "autistic" vs. "Asperger's" difference in terminology does not seem an overly useful one. I probably fit Aspie criteria a little better, but it's just a convenient distinction; "somewhere on the autistic spectrum, all right" seems to cover it nicely.
This has been a lot to come to grips with. A reasonable umbrella explanation was certainly a relief. Rather like the ADD self-help title, You Mean I'm Not Lazy, Stupid or Crazy?!. The expanded version here is not nearly as snappy: You mean there's a good reason I spend so much time "thinking too much" and "taking things too seriously" (and can't function without doing so)? You mean I might really have some reason for social problems besides the old "not trying hard enough"? You mean I really am missing out on a number of social cues, and finding it hard to concentrate on thinking and talking to people at the same time? You mean the psychologist who handled educational testing when I was 15 was right in pointing out the huge gap between verbal and functional scores? You mean I am not merely overreacting to everything, but really am prone to sensory overload? (Well, the pediatrician did point that one out when I was a toddler. Yes, my clothes really are that scratchy, still.) You mean trying to "pull myself together" is really not going to do a damned bit of good in most circumstances (as I've long suspected)? You mean I can't "just calm down"? You mean there might be another good reason I'm taking a long time to adjust to living somewhere different? Again, I could go on, but everyone would probably be happier if I didn't!
It has been a relief, too, to have some confirmation that I am probably not actually dealing with bipolar disorder at all, especially with the higher stigma here. (Don't think an AS label would get me treated as any less crazy by medical personnel, though.) I've suspected for a good while that what depression isn't triggered by light levels may well be "simple" reactive stuff. When I was younger, it was a pretty good indication of the sort of situation I was stuck in that I really couldn't think of any particular reason I might be depressed (especially when pressed about it). Now it's not like a fish in water, and I can certainly tell that I'm getting depressed in response to particular events and situations. And when one is prone to sensory overstimulation and overload, it's going to make for some apparent mood swings (never to apparent full-blown mania in my case, though). A mood stabilizer is not going to help that one bit, but might well increase the depression, quite apart from other side effects. No wonder I have been feeling better without the Topamax. This sort of misdiagnosis is apparently fairly common with AS adults, who are often at least diagnosed with depression (and frequenly PTSD) first, when it's situational.
I'd been coming around to the idea for a while that I might simply be wired a bit differently, but it's good to find some overarching model to replace the weird alphabet soup I wound up with under the medical model! Right now, I am not at all keen on getting officially dx'ed, especially under the NHS (and after dealing with the horrible gaggle of psych interns they're foisting people off on). I don't see that it would make any practical difference. Apparently a good number of other adults have been reaching the same conclusion.
* Most of his Basic Call to Consciousness, a 1977 address to the NGOs of the UN, is online, with one great section heading: "The Obvious Fact of Our Continuing Existence". That would seem obvious, all right, but it bears repeating if even I have been led to believe that we've been borged much more than we have.
** She's a very valuable contributor to Mingo-L, and I wish I had picked up her Iroquoian Women: The Gantowisas sooner than I did. Some of the cultural bits are Iroquois-specific, but most of it isn't. The discussion of the tendency toward all-around "Euro-forming the data" is absolutely priceless. This book does help point out exactly how destructive (and intentional) many in-creeping Western cultural influences have been to women, which had already concerned me.
Besides having energy sapped by the SAD and turning fairly dull for a while there ("Ventured out for groceries, needed a lie-down, read the rest of the day"--gripping tale, that), I've been fairly preoccupied. The annual hibernation seems to be a particularly good time for mulling things over, whether or not one really wants to. :)
Trying to make sense of some reading, along with an urge to figure out why I still seem to be acutely affected by culture shock, led to one realization: I did not grow up in a Western culture, and am not that accustomed to them, period. This may sound blatantly obvious--it does to me, now, and my mother was entirely too amused when I mentioned the realization--but it took me a while to put things together into a pattern that made sense. (As frequently seems to be the case with "should have been obvious" observations!)
This rather good intro, WHAT'S UP WITH CULTURE?, particularly helped get me thinking about some of the crucial ways in which cultures differ. It is aimed at U.S. undergrads studying abroad, and I was particularly struck by many of the examples based on "mainstream American" culture. The attitudes expressed were the same sort that I've been having trouble dealing with all my life, especially here in the U.K. Now, I don't think I'm entirely stupid; I had noticed that I wasn't necessarily understanding where other people were coming from (not to mention how little they were understanding me and my motives) from the time I started into a school system run by--and for--incomers to our area. I just had a hard time putting the pieces together, especially while I was being treated as a very bad person indeed for expressing attitudes that, erm, were rooted in a very different culture. (One True Way-ism, if I ever saw it.) With a little more grounding and a good bit of curiosity, I read some John Mohawk* and Barbara Mann**, among others. Let's just say that this has helped clarify a lot of things.
I guess I had a hard time believing that any number of people really do find a social hierarchy important, in particular. This is one of the most persistent challenges, from first grade in Radford to this afternoon in Sainsbury's. I may understand it a little better now, but I still have trouble dealing with the constant jockeying for social position and dominance that, yes, you do see a lot of here. If I am polite, I am recognizing you as a fellow being, not showing some peculiar form of deference. With my background, that sort of snarly wolfish behavior actually strikes me as a sign that one has far too much to prove, and I frankly have a hard time taking it seriously. This has led to me getting pushed around and bullied when people do not recognize increasingly frosty politeness as a more acceptable alternative to public throttling. (Ah, more memories of primary school, for that matter.) The feelings of impotence are even more galling when you're 31 than 8, since you have a more reasonable expectation of being able to deal with such situations without actually smacking people. Even understanding what's going on, I still have trouble being "appropriately rude", as it seems.
Ah well, I could go on and on. Throw in universalism vs. particularism, monochronism vs. polychronism, high vs. low context, tendency toward making value judgments/attitudes to diversity, etc., and there's a lot to think about. Gaining a little better understanding of what's involved does seem to be helping.
I was already feeling like an anthropologist while going about my daily life, and it seems that there's another excellent reason for this: I also finally figured out that I'm somewhere on the autistic spectrum. Maybe there is a good reason I keep worrying about coming across as weird and asocial.
Again, this would seem bleedingly obvious (and also was to my mother when I mentioned it on the phone!), especially since multiple people in the family are obviously somewhere on the spectrum. I should be familiar with the idea by now. But, Sid is almost a classic "little professor" type, and my aunt is just very peculiar indeed, much as I love her. Apparently, it's not always so obvious in women, with the gender socialization. Rather, it's not so obvious if you're expecting a woman on the spectrum to act like a man on the spectrum. I mainly look like a clumsy shy person with ADD from Hell. (Or, as my mom put it, "You're not clumsy, you just move too quickly." Erm, yes.) From what I have read thus far, the "autistic" vs. "Asperger's" difference in terminology does not seem an overly useful one. I probably fit Aspie criteria a little better, but it's just a convenient distinction; "somewhere on the autistic spectrum, all right" seems to cover it nicely.
This has been a lot to come to grips with. A reasonable umbrella explanation was certainly a relief. Rather like the ADD self-help title, You Mean I'm Not Lazy, Stupid or Crazy?!. The expanded version here is not nearly as snappy: You mean there's a good reason I spend so much time "thinking too much" and "taking things too seriously" (and can't function without doing so)? You mean I might really have some reason for social problems besides the old "not trying hard enough"? You mean I really am missing out on a number of social cues, and finding it hard to concentrate on thinking and talking to people at the same time? You mean the psychologist who handled educational testing when I was 15 was right in pointing out the huge gap between verbal and functional scores? You mean I am not merely overreacting to everything, but really am prone to sensory overload? (Well, the pediatrician did point that one out when I was a toddler. Yes, my clothes really are that scratchy, still.) You mean trying to "pull myself together" is really not going to do a damned bit of good in most circumstances (as I've long suspected)? You mean I can't "just calm down"? You mean there might be another good reason I'm taking a long time to adjust to living somewhere different? Again, I could go on, but everyone would probably be happier if I didn't!
It has been a relief, too, to have some confirmation that I am probably not actually dealing with bipolar disorder at all, especially with the higher stigma here. (Don't think an AS label would get me treated as any less crazy by medical personnel, though.) I've suspected for a good while that what depression isn't triggered by light levels may well be "simple" reactive stuff. When I was younger, it was a pretty good indication of the sort of situation I was stuck in that I really couldn't think of any particular reason I might be depressed (especially when pressed about it). Now it's not like a fish in water, and I can certainly tell that I'm getting depressed in response to particular events and situations. And when one is prone to sensory overstimulation and overload, it's going to make for some apparent mood swings (never to apparent full-blown mania in my case, though). A mood stabilizer is not going to help that one bit, but might well increase the depression, quite apart from other side effects. No wonder I have been feeling better without the Topamax. This sort of misdiagnosis is apparently fairly common with AS adults, who are often at least diagnosed with depression (and frequenly PTSD) first, when it's situational.
I'd been coming around to the idea for a while that I might simply be wired a bit differently, but it's good to find some overarching model to replace the weird alphabet soup I wound up with under the medical model! Right now, I am not at all keen on getting officially dx'ed, especially under the NHS (and after dealing with the horrible gaggle of psych interns they're foisting people off on). I don't see that it would make any practical difference. Apparently a good number of other adults have been reaching the same conclusion.
* Most of his Basic Call to Consciousness, a 1977 address to the NGOs of the UN, is online, with one great section heading: "The Obvious Fact of Our Continuing Existence". That would seem obvious, all right, but it bears repeating if even I have been led to believe that we've been borged much more than we have.
** She's a very valuable contributor to Mingo-L, and I wish I had picked up her Iroquoian Women: The Gantowisas sooner than I did. Some of the cultural bits are Iroquois-specific, but most of it isn't. The discussion of the tendency toward all-around "Euro-forming the data" is absolutely priceless. This book does help point out exactly how destructive (and intentional) many in-creeping Western cultural influences have been to women, which had already concerned me.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 04:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 04:17 pm (UTC)Yes, the politeness thing is very common in the South in general. The rather pervasive Celtic/Indian/W. African cultural influences helped the pattern take hold, I suspect. It's probably related to the high context/more nuanced style of communication--the politeness level is far from the only important indication of a person's intent in speaking. Seems to be the case in some other high-context cultures, such as Japanese, where the other (Western) cultures coming together in the South were lower context. Yes, I'm off playing amateur anthropologist/sociologist again!