The Future of a Planet on Opioids: Who Guards the Guardians?

Recently I’ve been reading about the reported meteoric rise across Western nations in the prevalence and incidence of non-prescription drug use and trafficking, human trafficking, and the similar stats about arrests for alcohol addiction. Distinct from but related to these dire trends, are the overarching prevailing factors of climate change and pollution. I will treat those latter two topics in a later post.

My focus here is on the whys, whos, and hows of physical and mental abuse from drugs and alcohol overuse. 

Opioids and crystal-meth are the street drugs of choice for most junkies today, and alcohol continues as well to shatter the lives of its victims. That is the chemical tapestry upon which thousands upon thousands of lives each year are ensnared by addiction and snuffed-out by overdosing. A recent drug bust here in Thunder Bay, Ontario, netted the police over $275,000 in drugs, including cocaine, $100,000 in cash, and 1,000 fake pills actually made of fentanyl. Street gangs from Southern Ontario were in town selling mostly to northern reserves. Addicts also are reported missing just about every week, or found dead in town at the rate of 1-2 per month. And that’s only one city in Canada.

The reasons for taking illicit drugs are many and varied, but the majority are traced to;

  • high unemployment
  • a culture of poverty and school drop-out
  • domestic violence
  • easy access to drugs
  • a fatalistic view of life

Vulnerable people are the victims and targets of the drug trade. Their ages range mostly from mid-teens to late 30s. 60% are male; 40% are female. Many have children of their own. Many are homeless, in a shelter, or living in the downtown cores with 3-4 people per dwelling (room or apartment). Many are treated in hospital for addiction, anxiety, and psychosis. Some are treated or counseled through community support organizations but many of those treated are repeat offenders. Some end up in jail from inflicting violence on others.

This situational summary is not new. These issues have been around for decades in cities across the country, but the point is that the incidences have increased over the past decade at an alarming rate. Local police do not have the resources to be effective in controlling this social corruption. The courts and jails are overwhelmed, and recidivism is high. And opioid addiction for example, has reached into the middle class as well, to include professional and sports groups. The recent legalization of the sale of marijuana in city outlets has brought more focus on drug use generally, leaving people with the impression that taking drugs – like alcohol – is okay. Time will tell how society will cope with the ramifications of alcohol and now hard drug use as ‘normal’, and with the normalization of high powered illicit drug use. We can only hope that the guardians of society’s victims do not themselves become victims.


Physicians and Touching the Human Body: Coming to Terms with Moral Codes and Temptations in the Workplace

The power of implicit (situational) and explicit (written) ‘codes’ about who can touch whom, and when, where and how, in society, extends particularly to healthcare institutions in which certain professionals are granted the right to touch patients in ways not afforded to other people. These are regulated norms, unlike lovers for example, who can make their own on a daily basis. Parents of newborns and young children are expected to have these ‘rights to touch’ as part of proper child-rearing. And physicians are expected to have similar rights as part of their professional role, circumscribed by explicit codes.

Not so for the rest of us. Permission must be given either orally or in writing by post-pubescent children and adults, to allow others to touch them. Even with prepubescent children, teachers for example, cannot touch students outside of school-board regulations that may permit “limited” forms of contact, e.g., hand on the back or shoulder. Male teachers especially cannot hug girl students, and female teachers cannot hug boy students, at least by code. Same-sex hugging is also proscribed, especially towards male-to-male in educational settings. There are clear rules about what constitutes ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’ touching and sexual harassment within most public institutions and industrial organizations. This extends generally to public open areas as well, but varies by culture.

Anthony Synnott (1993) has charted cultures which are “contact” cultures and “non-contact” cultures according to degrees of ‘tactility’, following from earlier research that showed many people suffer from physical deprivation during their adult lives. He found, along with Argyle, Mead and Montagu, that there are specific cultures which have very low levels of tactility and those which have very high levels of tactility. These he summarized as follows:

Contact                                                                              Non-contact

South Europeans                                                            North Europeans                                           Greeks                                                                                Scandinavians                                               Turks                                                                                   North Americans                                         Latin Americans                                                              Indians                                                           Some African cultures                                                   Pakistanis

New Guineans                                                                  Japanese                                                                                                                                                                Chinese                                                                                                                                                                  Upper-class British

Synnott admitted however, that within any of these cultural areas “there is a wide range of individual and sub-cultural variation.” He found that for example, “Californians and Southerners are often more tactile than New Englanders, and francophone Quebecers , than English Canadians. Similarly in Latin America, women in Costa Rica interact closer and touch each other much more often than Columbia and Panama.” This finding, among others, points to how cross-cultural communication can be difficult in a hospital setting. And we have to remember that variations exist according to variables such as age, sex, social class, and religion, regardless of culture of origin.

So how does all this relate to physicians and touching?

Physicians, particularly surgeons, touch people, either with their hands (palpate), a stethoscope (heartbeat), or surgical tools (scalpel, sutures). They understand codes because they, like all physicians in Canada, take the Hippocratic Oath (to practice professional behaviour), and have to submit to ethical standards found within their own professional associations, plus adhere to local hospital policies, etc. They are expected to take the moral high-ground. And they are taught at schools of medicine about liability insurance insofar as it affects their private practice, especially in this case, the “non-qualifiable claims” clauses that may relate to inappropriate touching of patients and possible resulting law suits.

So this seems clear enough. But what about other factors that come into play in the physician-patient relationship? For example, the age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, situational power/authority, physical appearance, type of illness, patient mobility/immobility, and religion. How do these variables influence how, when, where, and why, patients are touched? Would the fact that the physician was a Latin male, fifty-years-old, single, Catholic, and Chair of the Oncology Department, play a role if the patient was a twenty-eight-year-old female, attractive, single, Muslim, and former beauty pageant winner, with a diagnosed breast cyst? What if the patient was a 92-year-old white British war Veteran, with dementia and severe psoriasis in his groin area, and the physician was a 30-year-old black Lesbian from southern France, and resident dermatologist? Would that have an effect on their interactions re touching of his body?

In either case, who would touch who, where, when, how and why? The possible combinations of ‘causal’ variables appears endless, especially in diverse culures.

Or, would none of these sociological factors have an effect on how the physician treated the patient? How would being a member of a “low contact” or “high contact” touching culture mitigate patient-physician relations?

The urgency to conclude that simply being a professional ‘protects’ you from inappropriate touching, is offset unfortunately, by actual cases of malpractice involving inappropriate touching/sexual harassment (lower rates in Canada, much higher rates in the US). Going to Google Scholar will show the reader examples of Canadian infractions of touching code infractions. See also: April 29, 2016. ‘Sexual touching’ case highlights a loophole for doctors guilty of abuse… ‘Disciplined doctors’ often given 2nd chance to practise…

Written and implicit codes do work the vast majority of the time. Tort law, costs, hospital ethics committees, and codes of conduct extract compliant,  and it yet should be firmly stated that no profession (medicine, teaching, police, military, accounting, real estate, engineering, and so forth) is post facto exempt from behaviour sanctions. Nor are private citizens, exempt from the laws of the land.

But the context of traditional medical care (and physiotherapy or chiropractic), in which patients have to take their clothes off either in part or totally, and dress in a flimsy gown in order to be examined more thoroughly, transforms the prior dressed, more egalitarian state, into a state of complete subservience, body vulneability, and expected conformity. The power balance shifts to ‘doing what the doctor asks’ (or nurse) and defers to his or her expertise. The patient by definiion, becomes a temporary social ‘deviant’, and is expected to play the ‘sick role’ (Parsons). This state of dependency makes the patient vulnerable, protected situationally by an often non-visual or buried-in-adminstration “Patient’ Rights” code. This doctor-patient situation can be made worse when medical ethics and organizational ethics come into conflict (Hall). Or especially when there are multiple physicians attending to one patient, not to mention the whole corps of ‘ancillary staff’ behind the scenes -which multiplies the possibilities of things going wrong (as well as going right). Illegitimate touching can be like background noise at a rock concert; no one notices.

As the main communication of reassurance and healing, touch can be central to a physician’s role. But it can be controlled beyond codes immediately known to the physician, as in the case where a husband unexpectedly accompanies his wife into the examining room, where religious values of modesty and/or patriarchy override the physician’s usual degrees of freedom.

Western society suffers from a lack of tactility. We don’t touch each other enough in a non-sexual way. Older people for example, who are isolated from the community or live alone, particularly are susceptible to the mental and physical health hazards from not being touched. Physicians readily have this opportunity of redress with the elderly. Nonetheless, this patient group is not where most problems occur, when they do occur. It most often occurs in situations where there is opportunity and motive for sexual assault involving younger patients. Following moral codes every day, and while being vigilant about liability, is the bane of physicians’ modus operandi. Being careful can haunt one, to the point of much raised anxiety, especially as often found in recent medical school graduates. More normalized touching in society that is free from sexual implications, may reduce among everyone, inappropriate touching, simply through body acceptance and familiarity.

“Touch is many things, and has many meanings; it is magical and cosmic, healing and therapeutic, a product of merchandising technique, a prime mode of communication, soothing or arousing, loving or murderous, creative, polluting, energizing, an expression of power, and also occasionally a problem in individual, cross-gender and cross-cultural communication. It is essential for human physical, emotional and intellectual development, yet also strangely taboo.” (Synnott: 180)

Finally “We need to understand that we have for too long neglected and overlooked the importance of tactile communication not alone in the development of the infant and child, but also in the development of the adult” (Montagu, 1979: 335)

Perhaps it’s time we all incorporated more touching into our lives, but within the margins of legality, respect, need, and care.

TL Hill, PhD                                                                                                                                                         Medical Sociologist


Argyle, Michael. (1978). The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour. 3rd edn. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books

Hall, Robert T. (2000). An Introduction to Healthcare Organization Ethics. New York: Oxford

Mead, Margaret. (1956). Sex and Temperament in Three Pimitive Societies. New York: New American Library/Mentor Books

Montagu, Ashley. (1978). Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin. 2nd edn. New York: Harper Colophon Books

Parson, Talcott. ((1975). “The sick role and the role of the physician reconsidered.” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 53: 257-278

Synnott, Anthony. (1993). The Body Social: Symbolism, Self and Society. London: Routledge


PhD: Choice Is Everything

Sociologists will tell you how you choose in life may predict your success in life.  This has been shown to be true by ‘symbolic interactionists’ (for example, Mead, Blumer, Goffman, Strauss, Glaser, Stryker, Cooley, Manford and Plummer) who have, over the course of the past 40 years, examined such things as presentation of self, symbolic meanings, dramaturgy, generalized other, and basically what causes us to behave the way we do based on values, impressions and symbols.

Job interview cases allow us to see many of the meaning dynamics that occur in human interaction. In these settings, voice pitch, language, facial expressions, body positioning, eye movements, gestures, clothes, and verbal dexterity – are all part of the interaction between applicant and prospective employer. What we as applicants and as employers choose to include in our one hour interview, or even within the first five to ten minutes, may determine beyond a shadow of a doubt whether the applicant will be successful. Most recent findings suggest that a decision to hire can be made within the first 30 seconds. Impression is everything, and first impressions count most.

However, it must be kept in mind that impression management is a function of time, place, and circumstance. Success in life depends, but not always, on impression management. Selling oneself is an aspect of everyday life, but is mitigated by cross-cultural settings, location, expectations, humour, age, sex, education, status, work history, connections, and so on. You may not handle your self-presentation well, but you may have valuable skills that trump these deficiencies. So it all depends.

Best to be yourself and not present a ‘mask’ for what you think others are looking for or expecting. Time is not on your side in this regard, as your real self will eventually appear anyway.

Guns as Stupidly Normal

As a kid from 4 to 10 years of age, I was Gene Autrey, Roy Rogers, Lash Larue, Daniel Boone, Davey Crockett, and Hop-Along-Cassidy. Jeff was always Cochise, Red Cloud or Sitting Bull because of his black hair and darker skin. After playing Cowboys & Indians three times a week for 7 years, Jeff always died.

My six-guns could always beat a bow and arrow. And I learned to be fast on the draw too, and how to twirl my pistol around my finger right into its holster. The girls on our street loved it. Especially when I could fend off six Indians circling around my cardboard wagon. Life was nasty, brutish, and short for Jeff, Larry, Jan Eric and Danny who wore eagle (chicken) feathers in their hair. They were no match for my twin and studded black leather holster set -the best that $8.95 could buy in 1953.

My father and his two brothers were of course, avid hunters. That’s what many post-war husbands and fathers did to be able to put extra food on the table, besides building their own houses. Dad, his friends and my uncles, always set out in the Fall to hunt deer up near Algonquin Park. Most of the time they brought home enough venison for all the families to share.

But Dad taught me and my brother to shoot a real rifle at an early age. I was 13 when I bagged my first rabbit with a Coey .22. Then we got our own air-rifles, .177 calibre, and for the next 2 years my brother and I hunted starlings just for ‘fun’. We also shot (or at) other unwanted creatures, like squirels and skunks.

However, when I was 15 I went to Army Cadet Camp at Ipperwash, Ontario, for 3 months in the summer of 1959. All boys at our high school had to attend regular military drill practice (Lorne Scots) during the years preceeding 1961, after which high school cadets was abolished. At Camp Ipperwash, along with about 800 other cadets from across Ontario, I got to shoot the Lee Enfield Mark IV, Sten Gun, Bren Gun, 3.5 Rocket Launcher (“Bazooka”), and to throw grenades. Really. At age 16 (I had lied about my age so I could go).

In 1960 to 1962 I joined the Argyle & Sutherland Scottish Regiment (Reserves) in Brampton, and got to not only march my boots off again but also fire the Belgian FN gas operated semi-automatic assault rifle. At the butts, in Winona. Wow! What a treat that was! I earned my cross-rifle badge for marksmanship at 200 yards.

So with all that behind me, I joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1964, and learned again how to kill people, but with an Officer’s Browning automatic pistol; plus, later, with rockets and wing-mounted machine guns.

From a 5 year-old cowboy to a 19 year-old pilot, guns were normal for me. I realize now how normal it was – and still is – for average people or families in North America, and soldiers, and TV stars, to live and work with guns. I still have a rifle I never use, and most of my country neighbours all have one or more guns in their homes. Some of them use them for moose hunting but mostly they collect closet dust.

These days, the normalization of carrying or owning guns has made the United States for example, one of the most dangerous countries in which to live. “The rate for gun deaths in the United States is 14.24 per 100,000 people, compared to Japan at 0.05 deaths per 100,000. Canada ranked around the middle of the pack at 4.31 gun deaths per 100,000, while England/Wales bottomed out at 0.41 per 100,000.” (Fleuras, p.140) How stupidly normal is this US statistic in comparison. How sadly, stupidly normal.

There appears to be weak correlation between adult homicides and being brought up in a household in which gun safety was stressed and practised. There is a strong correlation however, between povety and guns and homicide, and apparently between untrained police officers and guns and ethnicity (race) and homicide. Guns aren’t stupid. Gun laws may be stupid, and gun owners with drug addictions especially may be really stupid, and trigger-happy police officers who fire on unarmed victims may be really really stupid. You get the idea here.

How does the media play along with this picture? As Fleuras (2001:218) has pointed out, “Violence for the sake of violence no longer has shock value, but simply encourages people to see more without experiencing more…Thus, violence what would by all accounts be a sordid and grisly event is transformed into something relatively painless or of little consequence, even ennobling, thus promoting its usefulness for solving interpersonal problems. Negotiation and compromise tend to be time-consuming and inconclusive; by contrast, violent solutions are clear-cut and unambiguous.” People flock to the cinema or buys DVDs to see violence, mostly of the guns, knives and bombs types. It is ‘normal’ to watch this; it is ‘normal’ to virtually experience death and dying; it is ‘normal’ to kill others for no valid reason. Life is cheap. Gun ownership is obviously cheap.







“She Throws a Baseball Like a Girl”: The Politics of Gendered Identity

When I was about ten years of age, I recall trying to get three of ‘the girls’ on our street, to throw a baseball the ways boys did, you know, like Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, or Harvey Keane. Those three girls were our regulars, who we could count on to come out and play soccer, football, or even catch frogs with us down at Soules’ Creek. They were, for all intents and purposes, ones of us. Except when they wore dresses. That was usually after church on Sundays, or when they had to be in school or visiting their relatives in various ethnic enclaves between Hamilton and Toronto.

After school and weekends set the scene for many mixed-sex events as described, and these scenes were usually full of laughter and kidding around. Not always however, and sometimes when we boys were too rough, as in daring the three to ride their bikes through old man Ginger’s hedge, they would yell or cry from the scratches on their arms and faces and complain to their mothers that we forced them to do it. But they drifted back always, bravery in tow, for more fun and adventures on Wilson Avenue, just north of the orchard. When their parents preferred the girls not play with us, or one upset parent talked to ours about not wanting their girls to turn out as ‘Tomboys’, things got dicey. The street and woods were silent during those mindful moments. And the other boys didn’t play with the ‘normal’, boring girls on the street. But then the sun would come out, and we would all re-assemble in the early morning, at the horse-drawn wagon when the milkman made his regular stops to drop off cream-topped milk bottles. Our female ‘buddies’ had forgiven and/or missed us, and would actually say so as they patted the Clydesdale mare.

So the four of us were playing catch on a sunny summer Saturday afternoon, and seeing as it was in my back-yard, I was responsible for sketching out the limits to how far we could stray onto the neighbour’s property to fetch a wayward ball. It often happened, since we were all show-offs at throwing, either with speed, distance, or accuracy. But neighbours were neighbours, and that imaginary border took on emotional significance on more than one occasion.

Carol-Anne, Valerie and Betty walked around the corner of the house, and to our surprise, asked if they could play. Since they didn’t have baseball gloves, and we’d never seen them throw a ball, the four of us guys did what was proper and offered to play catch bare-handed and gave them our gloves. We made ourselves into a seven-sided square, being careful no to step on the neighbour’s lawn. So we watched as the three girls threw the ball. They all threw it the same way. No accuracy. No speed. Bad arm movements. And we didn’t say a word other than praising them when we could catch their throws.

We are of course, born male or female, and rarely, a hermaphrodite (either way). What turns boys and girls into men and women, is culture and socialization (the process of acquiring it). Apart from on average having less muscle mass, there is no physical reason why girls cannot learn to throw a ball like a boy (assuming they want to, and apparently there is some merit sociologically among girls in NOT being called a Tomboy by one’s peers). Yet this one act among many, demonstrates how community, school and family life shape our identities. Boys learn to throw a baseball a certain way that is consistent with gendered expectations. Some don’t of course, but they don’t usually engage in playing baseball, and substitute displays of gender in sports by doing something else, like rowing, soccer, football, diving, hockey, and so forth. Or by not playing sports of any kind.

The transition into ‘men’ and ‘women’ for all of us, especially during the teenage years, can be smooth or traumatic. Social institutions like the family, schools, the workplace, non-government organizations (NGOs) can act as a political force in bringing about ‘normal’ gender roles and performances. To this day, in spite of the ’60s counter-culture efforts, girls tend to be identified as weak, delicate, cute and beautiful, and boys as strong, alert, aggressive and well coordinated. With Barbie and GI Joe as more than just dolls in the ’60s and ’70s, but as icons of a lifestyle, to be admired and even sought after, there is little wonder that gender stereotypes in the media, as advertising ‘billboards’, promote conformity around social class, sexual performance and body image. Misunderstandings between men and women, because of these socialization patterns, are common.

Social constructionists would argue that “gender inequality derives not from any inherent biological features of men and women but from three main socio-historical circumstances: the arrival of long-distance warfare and conquest, the development of plow agriculture, and the assignment of women to the domestic sphere and men to the public sphere during the early industrial era.” (Brym et al: p. 272). And there is in general, more gender equality in rich than in poor countries, which suggests that gender equality is a function of – among other things – economic development. Anthropologist Desmond Morris (in his book Bodywatching) has observed that when economic conditions improve, women’s hemlines go up. And there is a resulting boost in interest in pay equity, and subsidized child care, while incidences of sexual assault and sexual harassment decline. Research has also shown that some men still find it difficult to accept the tenets of the feminist movement, in which feminism may threaten men’s traditional way of life and perhaps even their sexual identity. Feminist thought of the past four decades particularly, whether liberal, socialist, radical, anti-racist or postmodernist, has issued a major challenge to mainstream male-dominated politics to vastly adjust social policies to especially extend the relevance of feminism to previously marginalized groups. And to remove the ‘glass ceiling’ women experience in employment and government.

So perhaps ask not if a girl can throw a baseball like a boy, but can both men and women play on the same team – free of prejudice and discrimination?


Robert J. Brym, et al. 2003. Sociology: Your Compass for a New World. Thompson-Nelson; Scarborough, ON

Desmond Morris. 1985. Bodywatching: A Field Guide to the Human Species. Jonathan Cape; London

Aging and Perspective



When I think back about high school years, sporting black hair and only weighing 147 lbs, my perspective on life was to see it as wondrous, hopeful, and exciting. My project time frames were short (as far as next week), and my ideas unpredictable.

After the air force, marriage, and university, my perspective started to change considerably, to embrace mortality as a definite thing, and to accept living on an old farm and driving 47 kms twice a day to work in the city, as the way things were meant to be. The loss of our two children within about 11 years of each other, was not.

Then, in my 50s and 60s, after many jobs and more degrees, and especially after also losing friends to cancer, and my parents to a stroke and pneumonia, life seemed precious. Time began to speed up. Health issues further aggravated this encroaching “carpe deum” philosophy, and I suddenly found myself enjoying conversation like never before. Slowing down in every way was looking better. After all, I had taught university long enough, directed several colleges and departments, written over 40 articles and book chapters, and successfully (with blips) raised two healthy daughters, plus re-marrying 13 years ago.

I still live in the country though, and consult, write and cut grass. And have regular ‘happy hours’ whereby I can take a cold beer or a sherry onto the deck, look out over the river, and converse for hours with our long-time close friends who live with us. Statistically, I have 12.7 years left in this current corpus delecti, and my bucket list might be too long. But I am not caring about being dilatory, or not quick-on-the-board-game-draw; rather, I contemplate my perspective on life in hedonistic and altruistic terms. I like happiness from doing what I like doing, and I enjoy helping others who are struggling. I find I read happy books now, not tragedies or sad biographies. I hug my wife every chance I get, and hug strangers if I feel they need it.

So life perspectives change with time and experience, and the aphorism is true…life is what you make it. Mistakes and all, but keeping upbeat is crucial. At 71, I still want to climb a tree.

Living is dying and dying is living: So what’s the issue?

More body cells die after about age 30 than what are being replenished. So what sense does it make to distinguish dying from a disease and dying from normal aging?

We all die. Some take longer than others if disease is staved off. Whether it’s from an accident, a chronic or acute illness, homicide, war, or suicide, or age-related organ failure – death is inevitable.

Well, the issue of course, is dying prematurely, and the fear and/or grieving associated with it. But it’s also dying maturely, since anticipatory grieving occurs among survivors and the person as well, even if he or she is extremely old. We fear death, our own, and another’s whom we love or admire.

Society-wide fear of death and dying is endemic to all human cultures. The psychological make-up of humans makes loss an emotional experience, and this phenomenon is seen as an evolved survival mechanism. Avoidance of physical and psychological pain is primarily a human trait, although psychological reactions to loss have been attributed to higher order animals as well, as in dolphins, whales, elephants, apes and some birds.

Humans can actually suffer (crying, moaning, sleeplessness, physical distress, bad decisions, etc.) when someone dies. And can suffer or grieve for extended periods. Years, in some cases. Grieving that lasts a long time and interferes with activities of daily living, like work or social routines, may be classified as “complicated” or “pathological” grief. It may require professional intervention. In normal grieving the walls of pain get thinner and further apart with the passage of time, but may never completely go away. Nonetheless, within months from experiencing a loss the survivor usually returns to former daily activities.

The acceptance of death from aging, as part of normal life, may be better tolerated than a sudden, or unexpected loss. Or much more predictably, than the loss of a child. Or than the manner of the loss, as in a homicide or suicide.

The subjectivity of the loss varies depending on time, place, and circumstance. But humans die, however the means. Cellular death, it can be argued, is a form of dying of the whole body, and without restrictions, is seen as “normal”. The dying are still “alive’ until certain criteria are satisfied to declare them officially “dead” (although we also speak of someone suffering a ‘social’ death).

The issue is one of acceptance of death as a part of life, and education can go a long way in facilitating this acceptance.

Schizophrenia: Disorganized Type

As one of the sub-types of schizophrenia disorders which affect emotional, social, and perceptual processes, the disorganized type is described as follows:

“In DISORGANIZED SCHIZOPHRENIA, a particularly severe deterioration of adaptive behaviour is seen. Prominent symptoms include emotional indifference, frequent incoherence, and virtually complete social withdrawal. Aimless babbling and giggling are common. Delusions often centre on bodily functions (‘My brain is melting out my ears’).”
W. Weiten.2000. p.428

Twenty years or so ago, one of my sociology undergrad students presented some of these symptoms in class, and on many occasions I had to stop my lecture to determine the sensibility of his questions. He sat at the back of a 75+ class, and I rarely saw him enter or leave the class unless just by himself. I imagined him to be about 21 years old. About fifty present of the time his questions, often spontaneous, were quite surprisingly cogent and informed. It was clear he was “quite bright”, as they say, in some regards.

But on the other occasions his questions were unrelated to the content of the lecture, and he seemed very confused, similar to being ‘high’ on something or other.  It was clear to me that he had a ‘mind altering’ issue, probably (I thought then) from a drug of some kind.

I raise this subject-matter because I sense that this syndrome is more prevalent in society than we are willing to disclose, or know about. From my other experiences in life for example (travel, shopping, family, social events) disorganized schizophrenia manifested itself I’m sure, but was misinterpreted by me as something else. In order for it to be correctly diagnosed, it has to be observable over months.

Treatment options, as with other similar disorders, suggest a combination of medication and cognitive therapy works best.

October 6, 2014

Toenails: Friend or Foe?

No one writes about toenails. Except me.

Toenails live down there somewhere, oblivious to the world above them. For some unknown reason they exist, often to give us distraction or pain because they grow. And they require regular cleaning and trimming. I have fought many battles with my toenails, but am still the victor. So far.

So what do they do for us?

Well, apparently, they are vestigial claws, used for digging or scratching by our far distant ancestors of the Homo Erectus variety. As we walk barefoot, they remind us as claws, where we have been with each step. The longer they are, the more attention they/we get, especially on public sandy beaches. Most of the time the claw function is sub-conscious and irrelevant. I have yet to see someone dig a hole with their toes, although in theory it is possible. And no one has stopped me and said something like “Your toenails are too short for clawing.”

They are status beacons. Dirty, knurled, ingrown toenails say a lot about their owner since their neglect predicts other body parts will be neglected too, i.e., hair, fingernails, teeth, etc. Really spiffy clean and manicured toenails are one important indicator then, of perhaps traits beyond hygiene, like personality. Clean toenails, well-managed person.

And they can be painted, according for some people an opportunity to display not only status but also its corollary, ‘belonging-ness’. Painted toenails signal fashion conformity or self-expressionism others also enjoy. Of course, the more people adopt a fashion the more it becomes the norm, so there is a time limit on self-expression of toenails as a personal statement. Kind of like the claim that “If we all were nude, no one would be nude.”

Toenails cost money to care for. Or they can. Clippers aren’t cheap any more. And manicures are getting very expensive. Bandages too, for those persons who happen to rip a toenail (only) from slipping while cutting the lawn barefoot. Or walking in the bush barefoot (been there).

Toenails follow us wherever we go, but are mostly an after-thought in everyday life. More likely, they remind us, rather than we remind them, they need attention. That ‘new shoe’ test is one moment in toenail time where they are victorious. Another may be while we are in bed, alone or otherwise, against the sheets or another person’s leg. Uncut toenails can be our downfall, in moments of intimacy, or while wearing open-toed sandals at a pool-side Bar-B-Q.

So where are we….do we need them? Probably not. Do they need us? Probably not. Are we stuck with them? Probably for the next 2-3 million years. They are just another in a list of self-discipline devices Mother Nature has loaded us up with, like hair and fingernails and other body parts that need regular attention. Just have to live with them, and use them to our advantage – for public status purposes, and maybe one day while in the garden when no one is looking – for digging holes.

A Cornucopia: The New Job Description

Have you paid close attention to the length of job descriptions these days? Especially institutional, financial and government job descriptions?

Have you tried to read all the way through them and understand what they are really describing and expecting?

At one time, not to long ago, a job description (JD) clearly indicated what it wanted you to do on one page. You filled in the rest on the job because the employer trusted you to grasp and learn, based on initiative and trial and error.

Not today. I read another JD today for a managerial position in a large Canadian corporation, and the JD had 41 distinct company accountables listed, and 19 applicant requirements. One accountability phrase was something like “You will leverage the product characteristics, with third party interventions based on conventional expectations of tactful negotiations and client respect”. What the hell does that mean? And there were 40 more just like it!

Qualifications needed were (and remember this was for a job that paid $62,000 to start): undergraduate degree , but preferably a MBA or equivalent; 5-7 years directly related experience;  ability to direct a team of 7-12 people, and so forth.

So we have to ask ourselves, Why are job descriptions becoming so inclusive, intimidating, and unrealistic in terms of time in any typical day or even week, to do all these things? The answer lies with the assumptions that a) extremely detailed profiles of work activity will cause only the best candidates to step forward, b) the organization will therefore save on unnecessary training costs, and c) the company’s public image will be enhanced by pretense to superiority. The most predictable reaction after reading these impossible lists is to recoil, have another sip, and go for a re-read. Even then, once the task lists are understood in their fullness, a potential applicant most likely wonders “How can I do all this? Especially when realistically makes up 2,3 or 4 job descriptions?”

My Dad was hired as a Superintendent of a tube mill in a large manufacturing company, after he applied from a two paragraph job description. He lasted 38 years.

The ‘Pinky”

You’ve been there. At one of those events or parties where everyone stands around drinking tea with their little finger stuck up in the air, possibly because there’s no where else to put it.

Or perhaps the symbolization of your quite visible pinky denotes social status. Like in Downton Abbey scenes.

Actually, it doesn’t have to be held up in full sight at all. So why do we/some do it? I think the link to Downton Abbey gives us a strong clue. The obvious pinky tells us you are of the ‘cultured’ variety of humans, intent on preserving a particular image in all social settings, especially where there are strangers present of equal or particularly higher social status. Both men and women do it, unless you are a man with a farm or football background or a bricklayer perhaps. No need for pretension among these kinds of chaps. Women are, on the whole, more aware of social conventions than men are, for a whole pile of reasons, not the least of which is that women have wider social circles than men. When I was in high school in the ’50s in Mississauga, Ontario, girls took “Home Ec” classes, and boys took “Shop”. These stereotypical finishing programs equipped us for life as a man or as a woman. One of my girlfriends then, in grade 11, was taught how to set a table and serve tea to a group of other people. This included how to hold a tea-cup properly, namely by pinching the handle between your thumb and index finger. Only two, or possibly three digits were necessary apparently. So this left space for the other two or three.

Since there is a natural tendency to let those fingers ‘float’, raising the pinky works well, almost on its own. It is physically quite comfortable.

And the pinky is the only finger really narrow enough to explore ear and nose orifices, and it also makes a good toothpick after a roast-beef dinner.

So raising it publicly may be a way of advertising its importance. The next time you have a cup of tea, especially if you can’t fit your first finger through the handle, stick your pinky proudly in the air in defiance of coffee lovers who use mugs. Cheers!