Showing posts with label judgemental. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judgemental. Show all posts

Monday, November 18, 2013

On grace

Why can't you show me your beauty
without all of your thorns?
There are two things that I have always wondered about my spirit. One is "am I really chosen?" And the second is "why would God choose me?"

I came to believe a long time ago that God doesn't get it wrong; that he's all-knowing and infallible. I believe that if God has brought himself to my attention, then it must be for a reason. But I'm not special, am I? How could I be? I'm flesh and bones like anyone else, biological and human matter. How could I be special? I'm not a "good" person. I mean, before choosing to believe what I do about God, I wasn't doing anything particularly good in this world for God to have thought "Yep, there's a good person that I choose to be associated with". No, I wasn't doing anything particularly good then and I'm not doing anything of that nature now either. So why would God focus on me? Part of me recalls that verse (Matthew 7:21-23) where Jesus said that not all of those who invoke his name will be saved, in fact most of those same people, he will call out on their hypocrisy and tell them that they will have no part in heavenly his kingdom. Geez, so is that me? Am I just someone who happens to have knowledge of the biblical scriptures but really I'm not a true Christian?

Then I start thinking best-case scenarios and I think, yes, God did "choose" me to be his follower but I don't know why or for what purpose yet, but it will be revealed. Then I think, even the Hebrew Scriptures have stories of unholy men and women, of Gentiles, that were "chosen" to do good things for God's chosen people but who themselves weren't any better for it. Oh boy, am I just a pawn? Would that even be so bad if God used me, someone who he does not think so highly of, for those of his people that truly do deserve his grace? And what will happen to me when my purpose is served? Will one day my mission and use be complete? Will God one day say "you've done enough" and just leave me on my own? Then a certain panic comes over me because I don't want that. I love him!

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to be of use to God. It's not a volunteer position either, because I believe God does give me so so much in this life. But what if I've only benefited from God by receiving all these blessings from him but really he doesn't consider me one of his own, part of his team? I mean, he said himself that the sun shines on the good and bad. What if I've been a very fortunate bystander?... I get all these fears and insecurities in my mind about how "good" a person or how "good" a Christian I'm being that I can work myself up into a paralytic despair.

Then the other day I heard a talk about God's grace and it really breathed hope back into my heart. See, as a Christian I learnt about God's "undeserved kindness". It was always about how great and wonderful God is and how we deserve nothing of all the good things he gives us, since we're born with sin already imprinted in our blood and are incapable of anything good. Our whole Christian lives (and mine in particular) was all about guilt. God was my shoulder to cry on, my welfare office I asked for all the help I needed, acknowledging how weak and useless and unworthy a being I was. But you know what, if you substitute the word "grace" for the term "undeserved kindness" then God becomes more than a safety-net.

A God who gives grace is a compassionate God who doesn't remind me of my sin and wrongdoing every other second before offering me his help. Grace. Oh wow, what a difference a word can make to my whole being! Grace; yes, I am in receipt of God's grace - and he doesn't ask that I justify my existence. He doesn't ask of me, he gives. He doesn't expect of me, he guides me lovingly. He isn't asking me whether I'm good or bad or worthy or not, he shows me how he has absorbed my sin in that one single act of martyrdom. He didn't need to know what each of my sins were, he said I forgive them. It really is such an embracing word. It really does describe the kind of God I learnt to love, not the one I was taught to fear.

Monday, November 4, 2013

On language

Over the last few weeks I have become concerned with the question of “am I racist?” Now, I am someone who usually prides herself on being a very accepting and non-judgemental person. Really, I have in the past even being judged for being too accepting of others, treating members of society whose behaviour is considered less than moral as my equals. I can proudly say with all honesty that I have absolutely no qualms about treating patients from any background (ethnic, theocratic, nationality, sexuality, criminality, etc.). However, I am bothered by one thing that affects me on a daily basis: people talking in a language I don’t understand constantly in at a place I must attend every day. And so I ask myself, ‘What is wrong with me? Am I racist? Why does this bother me?’ And, you know, the potential answers scare me as they threaten what I think of myself as, my own identity as an open-minded person.
Interestingly, English is not my first language. I am a native Hispanic. So how could it bother me when people speak other languages I don’t understand in my presence? Well, one thing that has helped me understand exactly that (and that indeed I am not racist) is the fact that I speak two languages. See, when I am around people that similarly speak the two languages I speak and others who speak only one of those languages, I will choose to speak the language that is common to all persons present. Why? Because I think this is considerate and non-excluding of others. But what if I want to have a private conversation with someone else? Then I will go to a private place with this person and speak to them in whatever language is most suitable. I could switch to speaking to another language in the presence of people who don’t understand the language to have a “private” conversation with someone else, but isn’t that rude? Yes! To me it is. I consider it so. To me that is inconsiderate and treating the person who is present as if they were unworthy of my respect, acting as if they didn’t exist or weren’t in the room when I am talking with someone else. I would not speak to someone in Spanish to have a private conversation with them when I am surrounded by solely English-speaking peers.
So, am I racist? I don’t think so. Maybe I am sensitive and expect others to treat me how I treat others, with consideration and respect for their feelings. I don’t know. I do know I just don’t enjoy feeling excluded. And I certainly don’t enjoy being made to feel non-existent or unimportant in a group of my peers.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

On what I (still) believe

I have been missing a lot more of my religious meetings than not and people have asking me whether I still "believe". Yes, the people who ask me are usually members of my congregation; and, yes, I do suspect they ask me only to know whether I'm still an 'acceptable' person for them to talk to and not an evil ex-member. I'm still classified as a member, albeit what in my religion is called an "inactive" member, for reasons I won't go into just now. But do I still "believe"? Well, yes, I believe many things...

I am a person learned in science, medicine, and theology. I love all of these as subject matter immensely and I'm a nerd who finds these subjects of study very interesting. Yes, I still consider myself a Christian as much as I am a scientist and a doctor. There are beliefs I choose to have; things I choose believe based on what I've read, studied, seen, and some just based on hunches. That's how I practice medicine and that's how I act in the rest of my life too. Well, of course, the practice of medicine is and has to be less based on hunches and more on reproducible evidence that has a higher standard of proof than religious beliefs do, but both are a combination of both hunches and "evidence". Fortunately, however, I am never asked if my belief in science has lapsed because as we all know and expect, scientific knowledge is meant to grow, change, and new knowledge must replace old one. My religious beliefs can only grow within a confine before it's considered irreligious by some, though. But what do I (still) believe?

I believe that God has given us an intelligent mind with the ability not only to accept, but also to ask questions and learn. I believe curiosity is a great learning tool, and learning is a gift. I believe learning only grows us as respectable human beings. I believe we all have a conscience and an inbuilt system to determine whether new knowledge is good or bad for us; whether or when to apply it. I believe knowledge enlightens us.

I believe that in a bad situation I can pray to God to ask for his help. And I don't know how God does it, but I will pray for it anyway.

I believe that in good or stable situations, I will pray to God to express my gratitude for allowing me either to experience that or for bringing it about. I don't know which one is the right way it happened, but I will pray with gratitude anyway.

I believe that God is the only one with a right to judge me and any of my actions, and not any member of my religion (regardless how "high up" they are).

I believe that God evaluates us in much more complex ways than meeting-attendance.

I believe that being a member of my religion doesn't automatically classify you as a good person, and that lack of membership doesn't necessarily mean a person is unworthy or bad.

I believe that one of the greatest aspects tarnishing my religion is the fact that former members are shunned and association with them is actively discouraged. I believe that is cruel and inhumane. Further, I believe God would frown upon this practice.

I believe that the members of my religion really do try their best. That is not to say that they are well-guided in all their beliefs, but they believe with purity that what they are doing is right - and that is why I cannot judge any of them negatively.

I believe God loves me. And I believe God is not offended or even blinks an eye at the fact of my believing what I believe. I believe he sees my intentions and my background and knows why and how I am who I am and forgives me for what I err in.

I believe God does not expect from us anymore than a particular individual can give.

And my overwhelming belief is that God's intention/purpose is summarized in this: "love your neighbour as you love yourself". I believe God (or the concept of God) does not exist to cause division, to instigate guilt and prosecution, or to punish or reward us for our behaviour and thoughts, but rather only to promote that each human being treat each other with respect and as our equals.

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

On memory


I came across an email I wrote a few years ago and it was about something that happened to me in 2007. In 2006 I took some time out of medical school for reasons I’ve discussed many times in this blog. The thing is that in 2007 I returned to finish off my medical degree and I kept running into people I’d known previously from medical school – and they were all surprised that I had returned! The only person, it seems, who wasn’t surprised that I returned to my studies was myself. And yet I struggled to understand why people were surprised given that I never once considered it a possibility of not returning.

Here’s part of the email I wrote to my friend (and, yes, I do write very long emails):
Being back at the hospital I am often running into guys who knew me from a few years ago, and its so weird. Some of them (I guess the ones who knew me a little) tell me that they’re glad to see I came back into it, back to med. This girl even gave me a hug the other day and said exactly that! Now, in my mind I can’t remember ever being as unsure as these people seem to be that I would return. When I decided to take leave, I knew it was just a break, that’s what I wanted, and I don’t remember doubting that I would return, only doubting that if it was to be one rotation off or the rest of the year (that’s all the options the school offered me). But maybe I was projecting something different. I don’t know now, I’m confused. Maybe other people were projecting onto me and doubting my commitment or abilities more than I was. It’s so strange; I don’t recall being that unsure.
I remember feeling empty and alone and overwhelmed - and the insomnia- but it wasn’t even the lowest I have ever been. By comparison that period wasn’t even that bad or even that long-lasting. And I remember a few months after I stopped doing med in 2006, a friend of mine (and I mean a friend not an acquaintance) said to me “you’re not going back, right?” I thought that comment came out of nowhere and I was a little offended, because even at the time of that question I was very convinced that I would – and actually looking forward to returning to med the following year. 
My family also had countless talks to me telling me that I should return to med. I felt it was so pointless because they spoke to me as if trying to convince me of something that was against my will, whereas I felt ‘of course I won’t counter-argue because we both are thinking the same thing’. It was absurd. But of course, I knew that some of them were telling other members of my family that I was a loser who was incapable of finishing a real uni degree. 
And then there was my therapist, who probably knows me better than most of the people in my life and is familiar with most fragments of who I am. She also asked me before I started back, if I actually wanted to go back. Returning to med was never an issue as far as I was concerned; when I would was the only issue present at the time I decided to take time off. And she had known me since before I started to feel all the negative stuff that made me want to take the time off. 
So, my question is: why did everyone doubt that I would return to med; what have I forgotten from that time? Why do I forget? And what else am I forgetting? It’s scary, you know.
The only explanation I can think of for my old acquaintances saying they’re ‘relieved’ to see I came back into med is based on another theory of mine. After I’d already been on leave a few months 
I told two acquaintances of mine from medical school that I was on medical leave. So, my theory is that these two boys must have told a pretty drastic story of how I was and why I’d had the time off. I figured this after I ran into some people and to catch them up on my story I’d tell them that I was a year below them because I’d had some time off – and yet most people already knew that even though I’d only told two people in my course.  They all added that they were glad I had decided to come back. What decision to come back?! I had never doubted whether I would or not. Unless I am forgetting something. Am I forgetting something? 
It’s pretty confusing. I am scared of becoming convinced of something like 2+2=5 if you tell a person enough times, like in that book 1984. Maybe the whole world is really like that, and the world trade centre really just fell accidentally and there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and you can convince a person that the world has always been the way it is and nothing of the past atrocities brought us to this “progress”. But then what do memories serve us for? To confuse us? To make us suffer because of the incongruences?...
What I’ve come to realize since the time I wrote that email is that in this world it is dangerous to believe what others tell you about yourself. Hitler, for example, surrounded himself with yes-men, people who agreed with his every word and told him his every idea was genius. Isn’t the same equally true if others are constantly beating us down and telling us what a failure we are and how unlikely we are to succeed? We need not surround ourselves with only our worshippers and we don’t have to believe our oppressors, but the truest stories are sometimes those we write ourselves. The story of Vanessa is best written by Vanessa; and if I want to describe a positive person, then I have to build my story to allow myself to become that positive person. It’s taken me a while to figure that out, but my story is a work in progress.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

On courageous conversations

Last week I attended an education session on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural awareness. The intent was to help health professionals engage better with this subset of the Australian population, and as such “close the gap” between the health of non-indigenous and indigenous peoples (who fair terribly worse in morbidity and mortality). The session was run by a man who identified himself as an aboriginal man and he explained various aspects of what is culture from a psychosocial and semantic perspective. It was interesting and he spoke of a thing called “courageous conversations” – you know, all those touchy subjects on elements of our society which if we comment on we’ll be called racist or bigoted or misogynist or otherwise prejudiced. Racism and the history of Australia (or the U.S.A or South Africa or so many other nations) is one of those touchy subjects. So we all listened to the discussion he presented and he played Professor Michael McDaniel’sreconciliation speech and made passing reference to Kevin Rudd’s “Sorry”speech. The things spoken by these two men are along the same vein, but stated quite differently.

On the 13th of February, 2008, Kevin Rudd, the then Prime Minister of Australia gave a speech to acknowledge the past evils that had been afflicted systematically on the indigenous peoples of this nation. The other purpose of the speech was to apologize to aboriginal peoples of past, present, and future who had been (or will be) disadvantaged or hurt as a consequence of the shameful government policies that existed to purposely suppress aboriginal peoples. The speech was symbolic and groundbreaking, intent on paving the way to improving things in future and learning from past mistakes. This very loud gesture was meant to benefit not only the Australian indigenous people who for decades had had their history and rights suppressed, but also of benefit non-indigenous peoples by empowering them with knowledge and freeing them from the guilt of knowing that their ancestors had done something wrong but they now had the chance to right their wrongs. It was by all accounts a very admirable gesture by the leader of a nation.

Professor Michael McDaniel, an aboriginal man who is also Dean of Indigenous education at the University of Western Sydney, also gave a speech related to the reconciliation process that was occurring in Australia. He told one story of a non-indigenous solicitor who met some elders of an indigenous community and tried to tell them that he was aware of the unfairness and mistreatment indigenous peoples had suffered and he had a plan to propose some “reconciliation”, in this case something akin to acknowledging the land rights of the indigenous first occupants of that land. The aboriginal elders when he had finished his courteous and respectful talk, retold him the history of the Aboriginal people. They told him how his ancestors had raped, stolen, killed, desecrated, abused, and hurt their people in previous generations and how the current generation of their people is still suffering because of his people. The young solicitor was taken aback, surprised, and feeling blamed! What do you say to that? You say sorry. And when you say sorry the better man forgives, right? Right. That’s what we do in our culture, but not everyone’s culture is apparently the same in this respect.

Now, I have varying notions of what a sense of responsibility is, but for a while you have to consider yourself in the young solicitor’s shoes also. Prof. McDaniel explains that to the elders they were simply telling their story in their way, that they needed to do this, to vent, if you will. And at that second when the elders meet this young successful non-indigenous man, “For that moment you are Captain Cook. You are Arthur Phillip. You are the Mission Manager. You are the representative of everyone who did those things”. But you may wonder, why should he be designated the “representative of everyone who did these things”? The logic goes that it is because it is as an acknowledgement that the system and society we currently live in was built to ensure the success, exactly as he has, of a non-indigenous person like him and not of an indigenous person like the elders. So is he at fault because he is successful? Prof. McDaniel doesn’t state it quite like this, but he states that the systems that exist are at fault, they’re the “bad” ones. And yet in the middle of all this is a young man trying to do the right thing given what he has. Prof. McDaniel states he just has to “cop it, because it’s part of the healing process”. I know, I was outraged at his logic too. But you know what? Apparently it's hard for us to understand, he says, because (and I am paraphrasing here) ‘as a young non-Indigenous person, we’ve never had a sense of belonging to a society. We’ve never had “a collective sense of responsibility”’.

Honestly, I liked Kevin Rudd’s speech better. I liked it better for two reasons. As a Christian I always remember that scripture in Ezekiel 18:20 that says, “The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them”. Acknowledging our ancestors sins is one thing, we can even apologize for them and regret it on their behalf, but as for being “punished” or held accountable for it, I believe is a bit rich. My second reason can be summarised in this quote by Antoine de Saint-Exupery: “To be a man is to be responsible. It is to feel shame at the sight of what seems to be unmerited misery. It is to take pride in a victory won by one's comrades. It is to feel, when setting one's stone, that one is contributing to the building of the world”. Guilt is a useless thing unless it motivates forward action. It is honourable to take responsibility for righting wrongs even if they weren’t committed by us. It is not honourable to use punishment unless your aim is for retraining. If your camel is already walking to where you want it to go, it is only cruel to continue to beat it.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

On skin

I was sitting in with a dermatologist one day learning about skin conditions of the type that are severe enough to make it into hospital. Before I went in to sit with him (as an observer) I had to wait out in the waiting room with his patients. I noticed a red man there with lots of fine scale on his blue work shirt and around his chair. There was also an older lady who I could not discern anything of note from where I was sitting. Then I went in to the dermatologist’s room to sit in the corner as any good medical student.

The man I had seen in the waiting room came in. He was quite animated and greeted both me and the specialist with a handshake and a big smile on his face. He was having another flare up of his psoriasis because he had been working out on a roof (he was a painter, I believe) and didn’t wear his usual long-sleeve shirt that in the Brisbane summer is only best described as torture. He was bright red (beyond what I had learnt the word erythema meant) and was shedding layers of skin everywhere, even as he talked and sat. He had come in his work clothes and he offered to remove it so that I, the medical student, could see and learn just how bad psoriasis can get. He was not a bit embarrassed, and he thought he owed to show me at least the worst spots of the disease, which extended literally from his feet to his face. After his treatment was sorted out and different work strategies were discussed to prevent such frequent exacerbations, he left with a smile even bigger than the one he came in with. The dermatologist explained to me afterwards that he was an extreme example, that he was the worst even he had seen, and that the man was remarkable to continue on with his employment and in such great spirits. I must admit, until that day, I had never even seen any psoriasis at all except in books – and that was not ‘typical’.

The second patient we saw was the other lady I had seen out in the waiting room. She came in, sat down, pulled her skirt up above her knees, and started crying. There were two small psoriatic plaques on her knees, about 4cm long by 1cm wide. The plaques were raised and had some scaly skin on top. There was no redness. This was devastating to her because this was the second or so time this had happened to her in the last four years. One knee, two small spots, and not inflamed. She apologized for having to show us such “disgusting” things that were on her knees; she was clearly embarrassed. The dermatologist treated her as if he had not just seen actually bad psoriasis and tried to dissipate her concerns and offer medical therapy for her skin. I was stunned to see how incredibly emotional she was and how humiliated she seemed to be!

One day I was out walking with a friend and she was telling me how she had always struggled to feel comfortable in her skin because she had a skin condition since she was very young. I had of course noted her skin appearance, but it had never occurred to me that she felt self-conscious about it. She told me how she imagined people thought of her because of her skin. They might think she is unhygienic and her skin is disgusting, that she is ugly and possibly ‘retarded’ or suffering some greater disorder. She said she imagined people would speak of her and comment on how ugly and disgusting she looked, and they would laugh and make fun of her. Just then a group of adolescents with skateboards went past us and were laughing amongst themselves. She said episodes like that made her think it was her they were laughing at. I felt at that moment not pity for her for having a skin condition, but rather offended as a human being not of what she thought people said of her, but what she thought of us, us people other than her.

I had one question to ask her: what did she think when she saw a person with a skin condition like hers? Did she think they were ugly and disgusting? Would she laugh and mock them? She responded no, of course not! I asked her then if she was special, was there something about her that meant she was a good person and the rest of humanity were judgemental, spiteful human beings? She said no, she wasn’t special. Of course she would never think she was special, her problem was one of low self-esteem not a heightened arrogant one! Well, I said, if she is not special and she would never think that way of anyone, what made her think anyone else would think that of her? Here she was accusing strangers, others, of being spiteful, judgmental, arrogant people with vicious mocking thoughts in their minds. Freud called it projecting, the act of ascribing to other attitudes and feelings you personally have. I believe no medical condition, handicap, special ability, money, or other advantage or disadvantage entitles you to cast judgement on other human beings!

There’s an early movie by Pedro Almodóvar called ‘Dark Habits’ in which a group of nuns take on the names such as Sister Manure, Sister Rat, Sister Damned, and Sister Snake. The aim is to humiliate themselves and remind people how even the “good” ones of us are despicable; they believe that “man will not be saved until he realizes he is the most despicable being ever created”. By the end of the film all the nuns have become either prostitutes, drug addicts, drug dealers, and other such “sinners” befitting of their adopted names. At the end, a higher-order cleric visits them to shut their order down and reminds them that sometimes “humility” can be the worst kind of arrogance when you wear it for a badge. Nothing that attracts pity entitles you to act carelessly or exonerates you from being responsible for what you say or do.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

On "coming out"

One of my favourite quotes in the world is one by Gore Vidal that says “There is no such thing as a homosexual or a heterosexual person. There are only homo- or heterosexual acts. Most people are a mixture of impulses, if not practices”. He also said, “Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives describing sexual acts, not people”. Okay, so some of this argument is about semantics, but it is also about labels.

If you know me, you would know that I have a hatred of labels— and so comes this ambivalence about the whole concept of “coming out”. I do understand that the whole movement started as a way to counter discrimination against certain people because of their sexual practices, to claim back the respect and human rights owed to every human being. I understand how it is empowering, especially to individuals who have been oppressed, to claim with pride the person they are and their right to be. I understand that identifying with a group, coming together for camaraderie, is a very human thing and it is often the only way to bring about societal change. I understand how it came about, what I don’t like, however, is the expectation that is now placed on many people to “come out”, to label oneself as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or ‘questioning’.

One reason I don’t like the concept of “coming out” is that I find it biased that a person who has sex with a same-sex individual has to tell people about it, yet there is no expectation that a person who only engages in heterosexual acts do so. There are things about the sexual practices of my friends, my family, acquaintances, celebrities, politicians, and many other people that I don’t know about – and quite frankly couldn’t care less about. How old where they when they first had intercourse? What is their favourite sexual position? Are they multi-orgasmic? Do they prefer shaven or hairy genitals on their partner? Do they use toys? These are extremely personal and intimate questions about a person’s sexuality and we rarely are even bothered to know these things about people, so why should we care to know other intimate things like whether they have sex with men, women, or both. Does it change anything? No, it shouldn’t, especially if they’re your friends or family. Seriously, who would like to know all the sexual details of their friends or family? Not me. So why does there need to be this expectation that if you have sex with someone of your same gender that you have to tell the whole world about it? Quite frankly I have friends who are probably virgins, others that may or may not have had same-sex intercourse before, but I just really don’t care to hear about their sexual exploits one way or another. Sexual expression is a very intimate thing, usually only between two people, and that’s the way I am happy for it to stay.

And the other reason I am passionately against declaring your sexual preference is because of my hatred of labels. See, because once you tell the world you’re “gay” or “bisexual” that is all the world tends to see. You in fact lose a lot of your identity and become just a label, often described by a multitude of stereotypes. You may have sex with same-sex persons, but it’s probably not all you do. Maybe you have a job you’re very good at, maybe you follow a certain spiritual belief system, maybe you play an instrument or have a large family; but the moment you label yourself, that to me is like the death of the rest of you. And imagine being known for and described in terms of the things you like to do sexually! We would meet a lot of people, some of them our friends and family members, that were known as masturbators, others dildo-lovers, others anal-lovers, etc. But this is what some of our friends do and yet we think of them as friends, not as “straight” friends or “dildo-loving” friends, just our friends. The things our friends do and enjoy sexually is a personal matter for them and they aren’t and shouldn’t be expected to tell everyone about it, to “come out” as a dildo-lover or anal-bead enthusiast... So to “coming out” as gay or bisexual or transsexual, I say no (unless you consciencelessly choose to label yourself for whatever reason, for whatever secondary gain). To me, labelling isn’t creating equality. Labelling, putting up a division between “us” and “them”, isn’t creating equality between “us” and “them”, it just perpetuates the myth that people who have sex with same-sex individuals are purely defined by the sexual things they do. For me, to say a person is gay is a denial of everything else they are – and they may just be the best human being I know.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

On being a foreigner

I once walked into an exam room and the first question I was asked was how I ended up with an Australian accent and a last name like mine. Common question; I don’t mind it all, it’s a great conversation starter. But when I was asked if I ever wanted to go home, I didn’t know what to answer. My home across the river? Yes… but that wasn’t the question.

Milan Kundera wrote a book called ‘Ignorance’ about a girl born in the Czech Republic who moves to France and lives there for about 20 years. Here’s a quote about her experiences as an émigré:
“Oh, the French, you know – they have no need for experience. With them, judgments precede experience. When we got there, they didn’t need any information from us. They were already thoroughly informed that Stalinism is an evil and emigration is a tragedy. They weren’t interested in what we thought, they were interested in us as living proof of what they thought. So they were generous to us and proud of it. When Communism collapsed all of a sudden, they looked hard at me, an investigator’s look. And after that, something soured. I didn’t behave the way they expected…. They had done a lot for me. They saw me as the embodiment of an émigré’s suffering. Then the time came for me to confirm that suffering by my joyous return to the homeland. And that confirmation didn’t happen. They felt duped. And so did I, because up till then I’d thought they loved me not for my suffering but for myself.”
‘Ignorance’ talks about nostalgia. At different times in my life, in particularly the last few years, I have been asked whether I have ever considered returning home. Home? I am home! Home is where my mum is. I guess I’m a foreigner and nothing can change that, not even time. Does it bother me, the expectation that I should long for a place I actually feel no connection to? Yes, the expectation bothers me. My discord comes from not being about to understand why I should not consider this — Australia — my home? Because others were born here and I wasn’t? Home is where I raise up my tent, the place I long for when I’m away. The place I long for is the one that inhabits the people I love, my family. That home is not in Central America; what is there is a memory, not my present or the future I choose. But people have this expectation that is separate to my desires, and this expectation renders me a traitor – a traitor for betraying an ideal that is not my own!

Sometimes people ask me if I remember much about El Salvador since when I left I was around 9 years old. I remember, of course; children remember by the time they’re nine. I remember the things that are of value to me, the good or bad things that shaped me. Some memories are still like photographs and seem distant; some more vivid and play over and over. But yes, I remember. It wasn’t all bad. War was almost always background for us (my family). Family, Antoine de Saint-Exupery’s books, school, and Mexican soap operas on TV were in the foreground (for me, at least). It wasn’t all rosy, either, as some people choose to believe, landscapes which they imagine are irreproducible. And although the war was real, it was something you get around by living your everyday life. People do that, we weren’t the only ones. We weren’t specially apt or adaptable; we were common people living in a place where a lot of common people also lived. Sometimes when there’s a big crack in the ground, people learn to walk around it and pretty soon it’s accepted as part of the landscape which isn’t questioned and you can’t suffer over it. Romanticism is for the memories of the past, you can’t suffer from it in the moment.

Yes, I remember El Salvador, certain places and certain people. Why do people doubt that I would remember? Because they (both “romantics” from my country and people born here who insist my home is elsewhere) don’t understand how I could remember El Salvador and yet not long for it again. Memory is not the same as nostalgia. Patriotism doesn’t and shouldn’t rule memory.

Maybe it’s time I write my own version of my story:
I was born in El Salvador, lived there until I was nine. There was a civil war; I was a kid, I didn’t know the reasons for it and I didn’t have a view either way. My uncle was killed by a land mine and my best friend was killed by a bomb; our family was one of the least affected by the war. We immigrated to Australia with all my family. All of it: mum, grandmother, brothers, sister, cousins and aunts. I didn’t know my father very well, I still don’t. If he is still alive, it is highly probable he is still living in El Salvador. My whole family and my whole life, most of my friends, and my ambitions live in Australia. I am Salvadorian; I live in Australia. I am at home.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

On "becoming" beautiful

I recently bought a new camera and I’ve just been taking photos of all sorts of random things and people. One of the things most people will often say to me when I ask to take their photo, though, is “not now, I look horrible”... Now, to myself I think “but this is how these people have chosen to present themselves today, why would that be ‘horrible’?” As I was thinking this, it reminded me of something I noticed a while ago – and maybe it has something to do with self-identity or the human concept of “beauty”. At the same time, I don’t want to be a hypocrite, and I’ll admit I once thought like those people.

Beauty is a very difficult to define concept, of course. You could say a rose is beautiful and say a woman’s face is beautiful, and not mean that the woman’s face looks like a rose. Also, one man’s wife may be beautiful to him but another man who has just met her may think nothing of her. There’s subjectivity involved, history and knowledge of a thing’s other than physical attributes involved, circumstance, and relativity of one thing to another of its kind.

I’ve always liked to take photos of things – just for fun. When I was younger I started to notice how some of the best photos to take are of children. Not all children, but children who are young enough to recognize themselves in a mirror, but not so young as to be too easily distractible when they’re awake. And when I say “the best photos”, I mean those that are most close to reality, the one’s that replicate a moment in time a little closer to the truth. I took so many photos of one of my nieces at one stage because with this childhood innocence came this absolute sincerity that even a camera (in my unskilled hands) could capture. Now, this little girl was just being herself and making it so easy for me to capture that “self”, so I took so many photos because I knew that the day would come where she would ask me if she looked ‘good’ in a photo. In fact what happened was that she then went to school and was taught to smile whenever a camera was in front of her. Don’t get me wrong, she was still beautiful, her appearance evolving with age (as it never ceases to do during our lifespan), but she had lost that sincerity that once came so naturally to her – and all because someone taught her that an attractive – and so photo-worthy face – must have a smile on it. A smile can make any face beautiful, that’s true, but that was probably first said about sincere smiles.

Before this period, though, my niece went through a stage where she figured out that the thing looking back at her in the mirror was herself. She had learnt before that what the general concept of a human face was: two eyes, nose, two nostrils, ears, mouth, hair, and attached to the rest of a body with arms, legs, etc. We first learn by stereotype, it’s essential; the world is just too difficult to comprehend otherwise. The fun times were standing in front of the mirror, her and me, pointing at this little person in the mirror and she realising it was herself because she is standing next to a person that looks exactly like me. Then she would laugh for ages. Most children will do that. They don’t notice that their clothes are all stained from when they spilt food on themselves, that there is things in their hair that came from the grass in the backyard. All these things are inconsequential details, the reality is that there in the mirror are two human beings, one which is herself, and one someone other than herself. This is self-awareness.

To return to photos, though. What is the first thing you notice when you look back at old photos? Yourself! Inevitably that is what you notice, it’s probably instinctual. You disregard the surroundings and the other people in the photo, and it’s not vanity, it’s just constancy to recognize yourself as you once were (because all moments are always in the past). Everybody has a self-image, a physical image and also a cognitive one that would recognize your own style of reasoning or speaking, for example. So the next thing we do with photos is to compare the image in the photo with our internal self-image, but also to this other image about “beautiful” human beings we have been conditioned to believe. So, often the internal thought process goes “does this look like me? does it look like me at my best physical appearance? and, does it look like those models in magazines and film actors?” When we were children the thought process was, “what is it? is it human?” and “who is it?”. Things were much simpler then. So, I won’t go on about how this “beautiful human being” mental image came to be formed because most people can probably guess it already.

My niece grew up, and she still likes photos; she even knows how to pose now. The skill difference between professional models and the rest of us is that the pros know how to look natural in a completely staged environment. That “natural” look and certain biometric features that some scientists with lack of better things to study have found is what we usually define as beauty. But my niece is beautiful too. She is beautiful because she’s my little girl, because she is a child, because there’s this sincerity about her, and because I love her. I’ve said nothing of her appearance, but you get the concept of a beautiful child like the hundreds we’ve all seen before. She is confident in herself and of her appearance. She’ll always let you take her photo, as long as you know she will always smile on cue for you.

But now, as adults, a lot of the people I come across don’t want their photo taken because they don’t look “beautiful” enough. I didn’t want a photo of a “beautiful” person, if I did I’d have cut it out of a magazine; I wanted a photo of the person who I’m asking. Has this image of un-beauty been so deeply ingrained in us or is it a universal lack of self-esteem that makes us shy away?

You know what else I’ve noticed in the last few years also? That the people that make good photos to take of are, other than children, the elderly and indigenous people with little exposure to western society. People of poor countries also have a tendency to view a request from a friend for a photo as a gesture similar to asking for a glass of water: ‘gladly, my friend, if I have enough to give’. And why do they care less than the average person about their appearance? I think because they think of a photo just as that, a thing that eventually will just come to be on a piece of paper as a representation of an event in time. But what about the elderly? Well, then I started thinking that perhaps they have had more time to have also come to this same reasoning, but also to accept their own physical appearance and it’s changing nature.

I was twenty-six by the time I finally stopped feeling ashamed of my own body. My weight has fluctuated since I was young, and since about the age of 12 I was ashamed of it. I’ve always struggled with low self-esteem despite my family thinking that I was OK because I got good grades at school, inside there was this loathing of myself from the core to my very skin. I felt ashamed of my body, to be who I was and how I was, and the last thing I wanted was to look at myself and let alone let anyone else see me. Mirrors were extremely uncomfortable places for me to stand in front of. Having to have a photo taken was almost an offensive gesture made at me. I didn’t want to look at myself. Anyhow, the whole thing made my life not very interactive and lonesome when I was young, though with study commitments I gradually expanded the number of things I became comfortable doing.

When I was 26, in my final year of med school, I finally came to the realisation that this was it, that this was my body, that this is who Vanessa was and I would just have to accept it. I finally realised that the people who spoke to me, who befriended me, or who were otherwise associated with me had chosen to do so despite of what horribleness I thought I looked like. If others could interact with me so easily, accept me as I was, then why should I not? The realisation sounds so simple now, but it had taken me 26, almost 27, years to reach. After that, it made romantic relationships easier to conceive, both in my mind and physically. I felt more at ease with being my true self. And even though 26 (or since) was probably not my best year in terms of physical appearance, I finally also accepted the changing nature of my appearance. And guess what? I finally stopped caring about what I looked like in photos.