The sheer crescendo of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overtrue has catered the ears of many:  a buffet of triumphant zvons and a sweet, spine-tingling fanfare of brass, the Russian composer’s creativity is resonant in every note. Yet, ‘Greek love’, or homosexuality, remained a latent façade of Pyotr, with same-sex inclinations further present among other proclaimed geniuses in their fields: Capote, Whitman, Newton, Wilde, Michelangelo, Wolff, Turing. Subsequently, the two deviations are upon question; to what extent is creativity influenced by  one’s sexuality?

Are occurrences of novel ideas crippled, indifferent or refined by one’s homosexual orientation?

Preconceptions, initially, require elimination at the outset: the definition of ‘homosexuality’ culturally varies, yet is in general reference to one’s orientation unconditionally towards the same-sex; men towards male persons and females toward their female counterparts (Hirschfeld, 2000). The inclination, or emotional drive is the determinant factor, contrary to the presumed sexual act as a dictation of one’s sexuality. ‘Creativity’ concerns an innovative mind, in which novel ideas arise to form as useful insights for the obstacle or task encountered (Sternberg, 1999). The creative ‘person, process and product’ (Amabile, 1982) requires certain traits to coincide (yet not exclusively), primarily those of diligence, intelligence, spatial ability and thriving unconventionality (Martindale, 1999).

Tchaikovsky with intimate pupil, Kotek (left). c 1877.

The earliest attempts for the establishment of a relationship between the two factors (with the inevitable influence of sexually suppressive societies) carried little merit due to their lack of ecological validity, controversial methods and relentless efforts to ensure variables are conducive to the portrayal of the ‘sexually deviant’ participants as inferior: Ellis (1959), for example, merely assigned heterosexual and homosexual psychotherapy patients with a negligible sample size, with a dictionary definition serving as the criteria and measurement. Conversely, polar-opposite assertions in favour of homosexuality tending as the more innovative cohort were reported by Weinreich (1978), in which a representative sample of heterosexual men and women were transcended by the homosexual populace in tests affiliated to innovation. With such variance, to what extent does a correlation indeed exist between homosexuality and novelty? Further, to what extent is it causal?

Steering away from the concept of a creativity as a whole, and dissecting the aforementioned traits of creativity bear the most relevant answer: Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) discovered, through an extensive compilation of evidence of sexual differences, spatial ability was highest in masculine girls and effeminate boys. Hence, lending to the notion of a child’s behaviorism, whether it be masculine or effeminate (with pertinent opposite gender), may support augmented creativity in adult homosexual life. Measures are seemingly then mis-focused in age, for example,  when examining one’s sexuality as the simplicity of youth may provide a cohort of answers to whether such inclinations provide an advantage.

One must reimburse ‘correlation does not imply causality’, as overlooked characteristics of the individual may place them at a mental or physical advantage, homosexual or heterosexual. Does the issue remain a bivalence of the cursed, or gifted variety? A delicately interwoven interface of the two factors, perhaps? A parity to only be reached in the throes of creation and research efforts of psychologists, irrespective of their sexuality.

Criticise (constructively) freely, comment without hesitation or simply, enjoy!

©Anastasia Elizarova

References

Amabile , T. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Ellis, A. (1959). “Homosexuality and creativity.” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15.

Gautam, M. (2001). Going the Wilde Way; Homosexuality: It’s impact on creativity and inclination towards creative pursuits. Creative Strategies Fall. University of Texas, Austin.

Hirschfeld, M. (2000). The Homosexuality of Men and Women. New York, Promenthus Books.

Maccoby, E. E. & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The Psychology of sex differences. Stanford, Calif., Stanford University Press.

Martindale, C. (1999). Biological Bases of Creativity. Handbook of Creativity. R. J. Sternberg. New York, Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., Ed. (1999). Handbook of Creativity. New York, Cambridge University Press.

Weinrich, J. D. (1978). “Nonreproduction, homosexuality, transsexualism, and intelligence: A systematic literature search.” Journal of Homosexuality 3(3)

Narcissus (Waterhouse, 1903)

Features of ethereal beauty, a soaring sense of superiority, ambition and pride nearing frenzy, with grandiose fantasies of wealth, success and power at a constant forefront in the mind; vague, yet universally perceived  characteristics of a ‘narcissist’. Between 2% to 16% of the population in clinical settings (hence 0.5-1% of the general population), individuals with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) reign (DSM-IV). We all, to some extent, know one – perhaps, we refer to them as ‘spoiled’, having an ‘ego’ (typical reference to males - consider how 50-75% of those diagnosed with NDP are men), or ‘full of…’ what is communed with nature proceeding a meal. 

Within the origins of the current epidemic,  a brief review of the mythological story of Narcissus may provide a further grasp of the term; Narcissus, handsome and alluring, valued praise and appreciation for himself, not reciprocating any love to any extent, nor to anyone. Subsequently, many were initially allured, manipulated, and briskly rejected. One ‘rejection’, Echo (prevalent in their story), sought consolation for her crushed feelings; a curse was laid upon Narcissus, and in the instance of catching his reflection within a pool of water, he fell in love. He was unable to tear away due to desire and longing for himself, causing him to feel the wrath of unreturned love that he once instigated in many and consequently, he died (or killed himself, according to other accounts).

Within the eye’s of many, peering, or rather glancing, at one’s reflection is an act of daily occurence. Equally, it is to be considered human nature when we allow deserved praise for ourselves, our achievements, and our efforts – we attempt to develop confidence and fortify our self-esteem through several means, at variance dependent on the individual. However, what ‘means’ are considered inappropriate? To what extent are they insensitive, or potentially placing others at emotional, or physical harm? For the individual diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, a sense of self is acquired at the expense of the basic human values and consideration of others. Fantasies verge on another realm, distant from reality. Notoriety precedes dignity, wealth precedes wisdom, and success is of more value than a true, fulfilling self-esteem. In their entirety, the primary behaviorism of an individual diagnosed with NPD is provided by the DSM-IV, in their Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, lack of empathy, as indicated by at least five of the following:

1. A grandiose sense of self-importance

2. Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. Believes that he or she is “special” and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4. Requires excessive admiration

5. Sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

6. Manipulative/interpersonal when exploitative , i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.

7. Lacks empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

8. Envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

9. Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes

Number 7 on the above list is a factor that provides the primary guidance in the pursuit of the question as to whether the disorder is ultimately a danger. The self-esteem, tentative and replete with materialistic tendencies and a lack of humanness is, according to Freud (1914), ‘an instinct of self-preservation’. An unyielding sense of superiority, dismissal of those whom are perceived as inferior, feeling special are apart of a facade that permits such self-preservation.  

Yet, to what extent would self-preservation compel us to take what we felt we were entitled to?

What will an individual, diagnosed with the personality disturbance of narcissism, sacrifice to create and maintain a fantasy? For Brian Blackwell, the answer was an indefinite everything. On July 25, 2004, the 19-year-old - not yet diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder - committed the ultimate sin; during a confrontation regarding his extravagant spending sprees for himself (in order to fund his lifestyle, he applied for 13 credit cards in his father’s name) and his oblivious girlfriend, Blackwell bludgeoned his father and mother to death with a claw hammer. However, at what point did his self-love become fatal? Within the aforementioned facade, or character, the confrontation was the trigger (in consideration of the details provided by the dated link) – threatening to crumble the fantasy he constructed to flaunt for others, to reap the benefits of a reputation of a, simply, perfect character. His egotism was threatened, and Brian Blackwell’s reaction was one of aggression – “a means of defending a highly favorable view of self against someone who seeks to undermine or discredit that view” (Baumeister et. al, 2000).

Brian Blackwell and his father.

Narcissism is understood as a fundamental personality dimension (one out of four) as a factor when determining the risk of violence (Nester, 1973).  As aforementioned, a lack of empathy (refer to No. 7 on the above list) is perhaps what allows the danger to arise; in the absence of guilt, one may commit any act, irrespective of how atrocious it may. Within the case of Blackwell, it was reported various  factors preceding the unfortunate event permitted the development of a disturbance in his personality (austere parenting, for example). Within the realm the diagnosed individual creates for themselves, we are led to believe the facade is what they revolve around; a study conducted by Twenge and Campbell (2006) found self-esteem plays little role as a predictor in aggression in response to rejection, suggesting that  aggressive, dangerous behaviour is strongly predicted in the circumstance of the combination of narcissism and social rejection. Blackwell, in fear of said societal rejection, did now allow those who could (parents) to break what he believed constituted what he was. Self-love, one of many colloquial terms for narcissism, has been demonstrated through the aforementioned studies to be of imminent danger in the face of societal rejection. Within Part II, narcissism’s constituents, primarily that of self-esteem, is a subject of intended exploration. Society’s pressures embellished his character, and further led to its deterioration, culminating in disaster. With research, the line between fantasy and reality is further engraved, permitting those for whom it may be vague to begin to see it with clarity.

Criticise (constructively) freely, comment without hesitation or simply, enjoy!

©Anastasia Elizarova

References

DSM-IV

Nestor, P.G (2002) Mental disorder and violence: personality dimensions and clinical features. Am J. Psychiatry 159:1973–1978.

Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 10. 

Baumeister, R.F., Bushman, B.J., & Campbell, W.K. (2000). Self-esteem, narcissism, and aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or from threatened egotism? Psychological Science. 9.

‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’

Merely said, a ‘golden rule’. Yet in reality, it fluctuates in its application – either discarded in the interest of societal needs and safety or considered in the rights of the individual with a mental illness. Consider for a moment if you were to obtain an illness of a similar nature to schizophrenia - prowling within a public place, wondering as to why you are guided by intrusive voices resonating within and around you. Would you prefer if someone saw and understood your struggle, and made sense of your situation? Would you prefer isolation, remaining oblivious as to what illness consumes your reality?

Ultimately, would you sway towards being involuntarily committed, or awaiting for the illness to escalate … yet, without the deprivation of your personal liberties?

One must consider the concept of parens patriae -  An obligation exists for the state to protect individuals incapable of protecting themselves, and (within the realm of psychiatry) in addition to the right to treatment for individuals with a mental illness. However, when is one ‘incapable’ of protecting themselves? In order to endeavour for a solution, one must first understand the problem; Within a study, only 13% of the patient’s understood they obtained an aberration of their mental faculties (schizophrenia), and 27% understood that their mental illness may have required medication (Joseph P. McEvoy et al, 1981). As a conclusion of the aforementioned study…

Is it not then safe to assume they must be detained, irrespective of whether they are willing?

For those in support of the above concern, premises of the following sort may arise:

1. Individuals are presumed incapable of determining whether their ability to function properly in society is compromised, and therefore must be committed for the safety of others and themselves. As they are ill, they cannot obtain necessary judgement in response to offered treatment. Schizophrenia is a disease of the brain, and their judgement is dependent on this specific portion of their anatomy. - In analogical terms, if the tool (the brain) used by the ‘worker’ (individual) is malfunctioning (ill),  it cannot function in the workplace (society) and on the contrary, must be taken to the ‘shop’ (the hospital) in order to undergo renovation – parens patriae; the state must detain and ‘fix’ the ‘tool’ to prohibit potential harm within the ‘workplace’.

Those who say ‘no’ to the aforementioned bolded concern, however, oppose for the primary premise that:

1. The state obtains no authority to protect them from themselves; the notion of parens patriae is null. If one’s ‘tool’ is perceived as ‘dangerous’ (from odd behaviour) and subsequently ‘taken in’, why do we not detain individuals whom engage in objectively dangerous activities, including activities of a potentially life threatening nature (driving, sports, flying), consuming substances of harm to their body (nicotine, alcohol), etc? The individual with the mental illness is subjected to  stigma, violation of their rights and preventative detention (further elaborated within my previous entry) within the moment one arbitrarily imposes parens patriae – simply due to a speculation with the presumption they are to cause harm. Yet, the actual attributable violence within society by those afflicted with schizophrenia is 10% (Walsh, 2002) – negligible in comparison to crime conducted by the remaining culprits (rapists, organised crime, etc) tarnishing our communities.

Liberty and insanity? Restraints and recovery? – Which is your ethical inclination?

One may only hope, ultimately, the ‘golden rule’ continues to thrive within our societies. Yet, in the case of involuntary hospitalisation and its relevant aspects, it remains quite tentative. The societal persistence of maintaining safety remains, as the rights of the mentally ill individuals are fought for, and the conflict is stuck within an infinite regress. Within whatever view you may adopt, you must ensure the salubrity of your ‘tool’ as, one day, it may require a ‘maintenance’ of it’s own.

Criticise (constructively) freely, comment without hesitation or simply, enjoy!

©Anastasia Elizarova

References

McEvoy J.P, Aland J.J, Wilson W.H, Guy W, Hawkins L. (1981).  Measuring chronic schizophrenic patients attitudes toward their illness and treatment. Hosp Community Psychiatry; 32: 856– 8.

Walsh E, Buchanan A,Fahy T. (2002).Violence and schizophrenia: examining the evidence.B J Psychiatry. 180:490-495.

Image. Retrieved October 21st, 2011 from: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~wox004/release.php?id=1875

“Speak against unconscious oppression,
Speak against the tyranny of the unimaginative,
Speak against bonds.”

Within the intangible crevices of those words, a personal struggle lies – one of injustice, segregation and an austere  loss of a fulfilling segment in life. The author, Ezra Pound – a figure with whom I hold an affinity to the most profound extents – whose spoken words (against the political ‘bonds’ of his time) consequentially restricted him to the most tangible, physical and cold walls of an asylum for twelve years.

To those unfamiliar with the grim chapter of Mr. Pound’s life, the perils of unjustified involuntary hospitalization are likely unknown; during World War II, American born and once British inclined Pound’s support was swayed, for various reason, towards the perceived enemy – fascists. For over a decade, the poet was subsequently subject to confinement within an institution allocated for people considered to obtain a mental disorder, or even merely known to conduct ‘strange behaviour’ – a psychiatric hospital, traditionally known and referred to as an asylum.

When one was supposed to face trial for treason, imprisonment within a place not intended for him ensued. Within the early 1900s, when the field of psychology/psychiatry was a figurative infant, it merely demonstrates how sensitively a

A young Ezra Pound.

society misconstrued a vivacious, opinionated individual for ill. Within Ezra’s case, blood was not on his hands, yet on the hands of those towards whom he voiced his opinion. As previously rhetorically approached within my earlier blogs:

Does maintaining a belief and enacting its compulsions – however miniscule or obscure – constitute mental illness? If so, is it deserving of permitting others to detain one without full consent within a psychiatric hospital? 

As with any controversial topic, ‘supporters’ and ‘opponents’ exist within a seemingly infinitely regressing debate. Within their disputes and refutes, a foundation of their perspectives are provided:

Supporters of the considered ethical dilemma of involuntary hospitalization say, most reassuringly, yes. In fact, a proponent of the matter may even impose it. One may indefinitely ask, why? How can an individual, perhaps ill, be immersed into an environment perceived as an utter withdrawal of the most rudimentary properties of life? Within the copious amount of answers they may offer, their concerns are primarily (irrespective of order):

1. Danger: To themselves.

2. Danger: To society.

The extent to which danger may perturb its wrath on society was witnessed within the previous entry, The Case of Vince Li; a life was cost, yet to what expense? – For the supporters, a life, or several lives take priority over the violation of rights for an individual inflicted with a disorder ‘deserving’ of treatment. Again, the issue of stigma is once again raised – within societies’ eyes, the individual may be full incompetent of caring for themselves and thus are reckoned as an obstruction to civilization with an accompanying desire to immediately discard them like, frivolously conveyed, a hot potato.

Opponents, however, acknowledge the aforementioned stigma and with fervour, apply it to the matter at hand; once applied, whatever relevant label is then a burden, perhaps not to be shaken off for the remainder of one’s life. In reference to how potentially ‘dangerous’ the afflicted may be, it is simply perceived as unnecessary preventive detention -detaining an individual in order to prevent a crime (perceived as likely to commit the crime). Evidently, a stench of an ethical nightmare resonates from the preceding definition;

If a person is suspected of possibly offending the law or harming a life, should we not then as a society adhere to stereotypes, embrace our preconceived notions of people and enforce the imprisonment of every:

 ’punk’, ‘gangster’, ‘stoner’, ‘hooligan’ and anyone ‘up to no good’?

Yet in reality one must consider, in all seriousness, as to why just those (in regards to this issue; i.e undiagnosed, without treatment, or accepting as reality) in a daily exhausting and perplexing struggle with mental illness are the targets.

Consider an anecdotal case, present on page. 315 of Surviving Schizophrenia; A Family Manual (E. Fuller Torrey, 1988):

“A young woman is observed to be living in a train station for several days. She asks passers-by for money but otherwise does not bother them. She is often seen talking to herself or to imaginary people. A newspaper reporter talks with her and discovers she is a college graduate who has been recently released from a psychiatric hospital. The woman’s conversation does not make sense. A policeman takes her to the local psychiatric hospital but the psychiatrists there refuse to admit her because they say she has done nothing to suggest that she is a danger to herself or others. She also indicates unwillingness to go back into the hospital voluntarily. She returns to the train station. A few days later she is found raped and murdered nearby.”

Above is merely, to my knowledge, an anecdote/conjured story for the sake of demonstration. However, it is of utter plausibility if such an experience is felt by the afflicted, their loved ones and their surrounding community within the world today. One is free to decide what stance they may take, perhaps inclined towards either depending on the aspect of the matter. When contemplating the view you may adopt, allow the individual cases and consider the manner in which they were detained, with what purpose, and the consequences ensued.

The ornate nature of Ezra’s words and compositions (if you may be ever privileged to indulge in his works), were imaginably of a liberating appeal to his mind as they are to mine. Yet, it was just his words that imprisoned him, not his mind – nor should anyone’s if it does not ensue harm to oneself or to others, yet rather be guided and perhaps bestowed with an appropriate treatment. In Part II, I intend to immerse myself, and my readers, further within the issue at hand. For now, within Ezra’s words, I offer a tangential tribute:

“I guess the definition of a lunatic is a man surrounded by them.”

Criticise (constructively) freely, comment without hesitation or simply, enjoy!

©Anastasia Elizarova

References:

E.Fuller Torrey, M.D. (1988). Surviving Schizophrenia; A Family Manual. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

October 6th, 2011.

Despite it’s questionable quantitive value, the titled question is one concerning reality; when applied, the label (pertinent to the individual psychological evaluations and their subsequent conclusions)  may ultimately be the cause of a further tragedy or pave the path to recovery. Yet, a stigma lingers over the spectrum, deterring those whom may be struggling with a disorder that they simply must accept as reality.

 Mclean was returning home to Manitoba from Edmonton, Alberta. Vince Li eventually boarded the bus at a stop within Manitoba. Initially, it is witnessed he sat within the front section of the bus, yet proceeded to sit beside his imminent victim following a brief bathroom break/rest.Seated by his sleeping victim, Vince Li produced a knife, and began to ‘calmly’ stab him repeatedly in the neck, and chest, and continued to decapitate him. Additionally, he is believed to have cannibalized (continuously licked his bloody fingers/hands) several of McLean’s body parts, and was reported to have carried his victims ‘eyeballs in his pockets’.  The motion in which he completed the task was described as ‘robot-like’. He pleaded not criminally responsible by reason of insanity, claiming to have apparently been told by God that Mclean was a force of evil, and was about to execute him.

Vince Weiguang Li

“It would be in some sense easier if Mr. Li was an anti-social psychopath with a history of malicious behaviour, but he isn’t that. He is, as I’ve come to know him, a decent person.”

According to Dr. Stanley Yaren (responsible for the quote above), Li’s illness was unfortunately suppressed and imaginably arduously denied. Why? – “Blame the stigma for people not getting help”, stated Yaren within court.  Within early 2003, Li began experiencing ‘psychotic episodes’. In 2005, an incident in which he was observed and subsequently detained by police; Li believed and thus stated he was ‘following the sun’, and as he walked along the highway, he disposed of his possessions. Yet, when hospitalized, he did not accept further treatment as he denied any illness present within him – once again, the unfortunate stigma our communities propagate is the answer to the question that persists, ‘why?’.

                                                In relation to Part I…

Many may wonder, irrespective of what was aforementioned, ’why was one incarcerated, and why wasn’t the other?’

The crimes are both of an exceedingly appalling and morally obstructive nature, yes. Yet, many perspectives may be held by those confronting the above concern, two of which may likely be:

1.  The initial and vast perception consists of a belief that regardless of their mental status, the accused should still be institutionalized with the appropriate/usual sentence that they would face in jail under usual conditions, and that it isn’t fair to eventually integrate these individuals into society, at times without a permanent criminal record. With Jeffrey Dahmer jailed, the families of the victims were allowed retribution. 

2. If one were to adopt a ‘humanitarian’ perspective, it would be considered not fair to detain an individual who did not commit the crime intentionally, and the accused should be treated instead. Vince Li, by comparison, was perceived to have deserved being re-introduced into society. Yet, in short, one must not forget the ‘factors’ pertinent to the guilty that unfortunately led to such events, primarily that of mens rea. One must also consider the sanctions assigned to the individuals, whether it be a mental institution or jail, still deem them deprived of what we may take for granted: personal property, a sense of fulfilling dignity, liberty and life.

Indeed, the stigma attributed to mental illness is one that is, for those not aware, of an abhorrent nature; Segregation from a society in which the affected would otherwise blend into is, as an understatement, imminent. To provide a perspective that my readers and I may relate to, consider the study of Goodyear and Parish (1978);  in comparison to those labelled as  a ‘typical person’, individuals whom were in search of counselling and labelled as a ‘client’ or a ‘patient’ were perceived, with undergraduate students as the participants, in a more negative light.  I cannot state from personal experience, nor am I sure of my ability to imagine the extent to which one feels when struggling with an illness – potentially confused, suppressing what permeates and dictates them - and with no one to turn to in fear of further isolation. However, psychological and psychiatric research may lead to a further understanding of what shouldn’t be ostracised, yet embraced most delicately.

Criticise (constructively) freely, comment without hesitation or simply, enjoy!

©Anastasia Elizarova

References

Quote. Mike McIntyre  (2009-04-03). “Accused killer acted ‘to save himself’”. Winnipeg Free Press. Retrieved October 7th, 2011 from  (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/accused_killer_acted_to_save_himself-40702912.html?path=/local&id=40702912&sortBy=rank).

Goodyear, Rodney K., & Parish, Thomas S. (1978). Perceived attributes of the terms client, patient and typical person.