My wife Michaela is conducting a piece of research for Choose Life Argyll and Bute, in partnership with Argyll and Bute Volunteer Centre, and is looking for support and information.
Over the years of delivering suicide intervention skills courses, Choose Life have become increasingly aware of the lack of resources to support people after a suicide in Argyll and Bute. They are seeking to find out more about what resources would be useful for those surviving suicide and those bereaved by suicide, alongside those professional services providing support to those at risk of suicide. The hope is that this will lead to actual resources available across the area.
She would like to speak to people in Argyll and Bute about what has helped them after being affected by suicide, and what services they would like to see being developed in the area for themselves or others.
However she would also like to hear from others across Scotland about what services and support are available in your area for people who have experienced risk of suicide, or bereavement by suicide, including both family and staff. If there are currently groups, helplines or activities that you know of that help people in your area, it would be good to hear about it, as an idea that could be used in Argyll and Bute.
Please contact michaela on 01369 700100, or email dev.abvc@tiscali.co.uk . Also, if you know someone who has an experience that you think they would want to share that would help this project, please invite them to get in touch.
We are heading off to Greenbelt again this year- so I enjoyed this clip (thanks to Jonny Baker).
My mate Alistair will enjoy the mention of those weird and wonderful podules (also heard descibed as ‘spiritual scrota’)- which he helped construct, and still bears the scars!
There was an interview/discussion on the radio 4 Today Programme this morning featuring the controversial American psychologist Joseph Nicolosi. You can listen again here.
This man appears to have a lot of exposure in the US- and I started a bit of internet searching to see what I could find out about him. Here is a bit of a trawl through some of the main organisations and players in this issue;
The Royal College of Psychiatrists are quoted as saying this by the BBC here.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) said there was no evidence that the treatment worked, and that it was likely to cause considerable distress.
An RCP spokesman said: “There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
“Furthermore, so-called treatments of homosexuality create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”
The Royal College said the American Psychiatric Association had concluded there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic glossary of mental disorders in 1973.
The World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Diseases followed suit in 1992.
So what is Nicolosi actually saying?
As far as I can see, his theory is based on a rather unsophisticated simplistic view of the acquisition of gender, shaped through parenting style and in particular, interaction with male authority figures. Then there is a lot of quasi-scientific language used to wrap it all up in. Here are some quotes (from here);
There is no such thing as a homosexual. … That’s the first thing we teach our clients when they come in. You’re not a homosexual. You’re a heterosexual with a homosexual problem. And your homosexual problem has to do with early things… things that happened to you in your childhood. Emotional traumas, hurts, childhood wounds that have set you up for homosexual activity.
In the relationship between the mother and the son, over-emotionally involved, strong personality, dominant personality. The father is quiet, withdrawn, non-verbal, non-expressive, and/or hostile. The son is temperamentally sensitive, shy, introverted, artistic, imaginative. … That child with that temperament in a particular family dynamic will set him up gender deficit, and that gender deficit becomes compensated through homosexual activity.
We advise fathers, if you don’t hug your sons, some other man will.
If he reaches out to the father who is not interested, he will experience what we call a narcissistic hurt. … And so he surrenders his masculine strivings. He says basically to his father, “If you’re not interested in me, I’m not interested in you.” … And that narcissistic injury produces an adult, a homosexually-oriented adult, who is cautious, fearful, easily hurt, easily slighted, easily offended, self-protective – that is what we call the shame posture. If men get to see me they’re not going to like me. There’s something inferior about me.
Homosexuality is not about sex, it’s about your sense of self. If you change your sense of self, your homosexuality will become a non-issue. Homosexuality is a masculine inferiority. It’s a striving to connect.
So the faith is a very important dimension to bring in because it gives not only direction, but because it gives the interior resources. It gives that inner power to pursue the direction. So our Christianity isn’t just telling us what to do, but it’s giving us the power to do it. And I have found that whatever the person’s religious convictions are at the beginning of therapy, it usually deepens naturally in the course of therapy.
By way of contrast- I came across this series of clips from a Gay activist who had been invited to attend the ‘Love won out’ conference. They seemed to be very graceful…
There is no surprise that Nicolosi’s message has been greeted with such enthusiasm by Conservative Christians. It ticks all the right boxes. In fact, it seems to fit rather too well, and we have to ask which came first-the ‘science’ or the ideology?
So, what do I think? I am going to make some general statements, then tell a story.
If Nicolosi is right, then homosexuality is indeed a result of dysfunctional experiences in early life. I am afraid this is rather too simplistic for me. Why do people who have the same experience in childhood (Positive or negative) develop such different sexuality? Most human characteristics develop through the interaction between both nurture AND nature. This means that causality is almost always impossible to be categorical about, even where dysfunction (which is often a social value judgment) is agreed upon- for example where people are mentally ill.
Science that begins with a narrow ideological/theological perspective is likely to be extremely problematic. Morality is not usually very scientific. But then science is never value free either- there are always interests that will introduce bias. I think we have a duty to be as honest as we can be about these however.
It is clear that there are many stories of people who claim to have been ‘cured’ by therapy of their homosexuality. I have no doubt this is true for some- as the variety of human experience is wide and wonderful. I would expect some to people to remain straight (a small group though) most to revert, and many to be damaged and disillusioned.
Gay=dysfunction? This is almost certain to perpetuate prejudice against one group of people. Perhaps this is acceptable, if your reading of the Bible allows you to draw hard lines on this issue. I think we are called to love first however- and to stand with the oppressed, not to pile stones as projectiles.
Statements that equate homosexuality with sexual molestation in childhood are simply not supported by evidence.
Blaming parents? An easy hit. Psycho-dynamic therapists have done similar things for lots of issues. There was this dreadful phrase ‘schizophrenogenic mothers’ who were supposedly the cause of schizophrenia…
Now- the story.
I used to work in a northern English town as a mental health therapist running clinics in GP surgeries. GP’s would refer people to me for assessment after which we might agree a referral elsewhere, or a short run of therapy from myself.
In this context I met lots of wonderful people- most carrying wounds. Some had had very difficult and abusive backgrounds. Many had experienced depression and anxiety. Others were living with grief. Others had secrets that were eating away at them.
I met one man whose story stayed with me. He lived with his wife of 45 years. They had three children, all long grown up and gone. He was desperately unhappy.
Soon after marriage his secret was out. He had been having homosexual affairs.
With all his might he wished that these overwhelming sexual urges that he had experienced as long as he could remember would just go away. And it being the 1960’s, and homosexuality was still illegal, and classified as a mental illness, he sought treatment.
A hospital in Manchester offered behavioural modification through the application of aversion therapy. This involved being exposed to erotic images and at the first signs of sexual arousal, he was subjected to electric shocks.
Over a considerable period of time he yo-yo’ed through life, in out of his family, gay then straight, a member of his society, then a pariah.
Now here he was. Estranged from his children, still caught up with the same confusion and pain. His wife an alcoholic. Life almost over.
Wanting and waiting to die.
Whatever your theory of sexuality- whatever moral stance you adopt- this man life has been blighted by societies response to his sexuality.
So Lord help us. Let us learn the position of love. And have no agendas that we subject others to.
Followers of this blog may remember earlier posts about the tragic case of Baby P, the Haringey toddler who was murdered despite the continuing involvement of Social Workers, Health Workers and Police.
As a social worker, I was concerned with the media feeding frenzy that surrounded this tragic case, and with the certainty that this would obscure the real issues.
Today, after what can only be described as a Witch Hunt against the leader of Children’s Services in Haringey, Sharon Shoesmith, the media gaze finally turned to the Police investigation.
Earlier, the police claimed to have warned social services of the danger, and said these were rejected by the social worker concerned. Story here.
Now a report lists systemic failure on the part of the Metropolitan Police in it’s investigation of the injuries sustained by Baby P 9 months prior to his eventual death. These failures are familiar to anyone working in complex organisations-
Time ‘drift’ and deadlines being missed
Staff moving on and not handing information over properly
A failure to chase up requested medical reports (Presumably the focus will switch to Health now.)
A specialist was appointed to review the evidence- but seemed to be forgotten about
So, on this Good Friday, how are you going to remember the death of Jesus?
In the Philippines, there is an extreme ritual that has to be seen to be believed. For those with weak stomachs, I suggest you do not watch the following clip-
Inflicting pain on yourself as a spiritual discipline seems to have a long Christian tradition. Often called mortification of the flesh, it has remained a strong Catholic practice. Taking this to the extreme, the Flagellants of the 13th Century became a popular movement- peaking around the time of the Black Death.
What motivates people to do damage to themselves in the name of God? Fervency? Desperation? Group psychosis? I suppose this is one of those things that can only really be commented on from the inside. I notice that the story of an Australian comedian’s participation in one such ceremony this year has made a splash- here.
What of us? Michaela is making hot cross buns. Not mortification, but fortification of the flesh you could say!
My girl Emily is off sailing in Norfolk with Bitternes afloat. Our friends Nick and Lindsay are skippers on the cruise, which is a yearly event. Em had a great time last year.
In the words of Arthur Ransome;
If NOT DUFFER WILL NOT DROWN, IF DUFFER, BETTER DROWNED…
Watching her disappear for the ferry and airport, I do not concur. She may or not be a duffer, but come home safe Emily…
On the drive round to Inveraray yesterday, I stopped the car and climbed a gate to go and check out the Gypsy ring overlooking a rain and windswept Loch Fyne. I have mentioned this place before- a mythical, and slightly neglected place which is half covered by tarmac from the old road, and is protected by a flimsy wire fence from the substantial herd of Highland Cattle that roam the fields thereabouts.
What this place is all about is lost in folklore. But one person told me that this was the site of Gypsy wedding ceremonies. The place where the Romany people who used to live in some numbers hereabouts would make a commitment to one another.
I have tried to find out more about these traditions, but so far have failed to find much from a Scottish context- and certainly nothing about this Gypsy ring. however, there is a very interesting account of Romany wedding rituals here. Romany culture has been persecuted and battered into the margins of society, perhaps now more than ever in these so called enlightened times. It has flourished still however, and I hope it may long continue to do so. There is room for all in this wonderful humanity of ours…
I have often wondered about the use of this dramatic site- high over the Loch, with panoramic views over towards Kintyre. Exposed as it is to the constantly changing weather. There is a whiff of magic about the place.
It clearly still has meaning to some folk. There are always a few coins scattered onto the circle, seeking some kind of luck or superstitious blessing.
One of the more adventurous young calves is often to be seen inside the fence. I hope he or she has been careful about what intonations they mooed out, lest they found themselves accidentally married…
I am a person who would describe himself as happily blessed through marriage.
For those who are on the outside of such a union, this is definitely not the same thing as living in blissful joyful togetherness all the time- although we have had our moments. But after almost 19 years together, I feel I have given it enough of a road test to be able to make a firm recommendation of the concept.
To summarise- the statistics seem to show a decline in numbers of folk marrying, an increase in civil ceremonies as opposed to religious ones (up from 47% in 1990 to 67% in 1997), and people are getting married later in life for the first time.
Paradoxically, and perhaps related to economic concerns, the divorce rate is thought to be at it’s lowest for 26 years (See here.)
Does all this matter? To some, particularly Christian family groups, it is vital. These groups tend to see nuclear families as God-given building blocks, and to seek to defend this idealised way of living at all costs- campaigning against any aspect of government policy, or ‘alternative lifestyle’ that seems to challenge the centrality of marriage. I will not mention any names, but some of these groups scare me, and I feel I have more in common with the Romanies than them at times!
Is the nuclear family a Judeo-Christian thing that can be distilled from the Bible as the way to be? It has always puzzled me to hear people claim this. It seems clear that family structures were very different in the different cultures and contexts that can be inferred from Biblical stories.
Some random thoughts about marriage-
Marriage is a partnership of two people who bring all sorts of baggage with them. Some relationships are toxic and damaging to all that come into contact with them.
Many do not survive. My pull is towards the broken people- not because of their failure, but rather because that is where Jesus would be.
Social Policy based on idealistic moral stances is dangerous.
We live in a post-Christian country. Things are changing.
All the central institutions of society are under challenge and review.
Marriage may well mean different things to different people within this new context.
But despite this, I believe in marriage. But then, this is easy for me to say, because I am married to Michaela- so I had an advantage.
The fact remains that study after study shows that kids born into stable loving family environments with strong parental role models have won the whole life lottery, in terms of psychology, emotionality, education, health- just about about every other measure. You can strip these statistics back and dig into what exactly was helpful about these situations, and whether they might be available through other social constructs, but the value of traditional family structures at their best are simply undeniable.
As can be shown from the Romany marriage circle- this model is not restricted to Christian tradition. The nuclear family remains the main social unit in Communist China also.
Perhaps we are going through change. But I have a feeling that marriage is here to stay…
this fragile tent 
