#Metoo Movement: Socially Progressive Movement?

For those who have heard #Metoo for the first time or have no clue about it, #Metoo is basically a movement against sexual harassment and assault. It became viral in October 2017 globally as a hashtag (on social media) to help demonstrate the widespread prevalence of sexual harassment and assault at workplace. The purpose of the movement is to help people come up and confidently vocal about if they have ever been harassed or assaulted.

After Millions of people started using this hashtag, it was translated into dozens of languages, reached majority of countries and cultures and once again people started generating different meaning of #Metoo, sometimes different or sometimes opposite of what the movement already started over. Recently it had a wave in Pakistan especially when Misha Shafi spoke about Ali Zafar under the hashtag #Metoo.

Several people gave different opinions over every #Metoo expression. Some supported them for being confident enough to finally be able to speak about it where as there were people who went totally against the expression and some chose to remain neutral. I was asked occasionally about my opinion as a person, as a female and then as a psychologist. Recently, while submitting my research proposal to my professor for Domestic Violence, i read several theories which shed light on this perspective. Then finally, Saad my dear young friend made sure i express my opinion about it. I, in the following article is not taking anyone's side but rather putting up different paradigms to view about the movement holistically around the globe.

Why the #Metoo movement spread like a wildfire globally?

#Metoo is deeply rooted with an explosive expression to "Stop it" (It: harassment/assault). Any explosive material may it be a linguistic expression is not supposed to remain silent or can not be silenced. The movement encouraged and activated the suppressed voices of sexually harassed or assaulted. Every #Metoo kept on strengthening its own platform as "someone telling story of someone". The expression expressed everything which did not actually include everything for instance the details of what happened, what could not or should have happened, conclusively hiding the other side of the coin. 

It made #Metoo movement seems rather reckless, and seems not to go ahead till "me" become "we" and "too" become "twos" as #Wetwos- because wetwos gave the expression the intensity, making it evolving immensely. It took people like me in awe of its evolving power including its social aspect, existential aspect as well as political and ethical. Little bit of Sociology i studied and it took me back to feminism movement when it started. Shall we conclude #Metoo movement as progressive social movement or re-enabling the political abuse of power or unethical means of speaking, defending, attacking, counter attacking? There are people who are trying to stop the movement under the reason that its plainly irrational since it provides a room for simple bargaining or bullying their way out of problems.

And then my mind wanders over the question of its lasting duration and durability. The collectivism which is igniting every corner of the earth, how do we go about it? Supporting those who are expressive about their previously suppressed harassment or assault and contribute to the movement? And how to contribute to movement by being vocal ourself and stuffing words and words? Remember, when wave of terrorism hit us as aftermath of US-Afghan war how conscious we were and later on became so numb that if one part of the city has a suicide attack, the rest of the city goes about in its routine. What if stuffing words and words to this movement end up numbing us? What if this kind of contribution which is the only contribution i can see right now end up in putting fire out?

#Metoo as "Me" and "Too"?

The word "me" holds a one way perspective where it universally represents person in context and ignoring the environment. This structure of power which attempts to voice interpersonal injustice, intimate or impersonal, ranging from apparently debatable expression to simply shocking. Where as too in #Metoo is the affirmation supplementing a vocal position and associative identification. However, the question is rather simple why is it me and not I? If the movement targets which seems likely that it does target the self-awakening among the harassed and assaulted then where is the "I" that responds in them? The "I" of those who are genuine victims of abuse, rape and violence, where "Me" re-silence their nameless voices, which makes me wonder about this majority that still remain to chose silent actively or passively. Is it the duplicated minority which speaks in #Metoo as "me" and "I" demands an attention to such "darker" sides of another "me".

The Hollywood and The other Media Stars

When Ashley Judd, Jennifer Lawrence and now Misha Shafi (and the rest thousand others) spoke up, I had few questions myself. What accounts for sexual difference? what a sexual relationship is? what do two people do with one another behind closed doors? If for instance, Sigmund Freud is right that search for origins of these questions will end up in the middle of sexual research with nothing but grief then, answer to these questions is basically a ladder of grief, with more grief when it comes to sexual violation. Freud in his attempt to answer these questions concludes that every sexual violation which shock us, and in an attempt to know more about it: we give ourselves the space to have the answer on its own, in our own time, in our lives where we ourselves play with wishes and encounter our own selfishly pleasant desires. If we relate selfish pleasant desires of violation and power to this #Metoo movement, it haunts me to the fact that there might be people bullying the other in an attempt to escape their problems, abusing power of their own gender-commonality. 

The powerful figures of media may it be artists, singers, actors, actresses, news anchor, hosts etc who spoke under #Metoo movement lead me to another question of sexual violation. It is the media, It is the stage, it is the theatre itself where we get first exposure of the body, of sexual passion, and tell the tales of infatuation and love between men and women. This media becomes more alive, and gets even more rating with the intensity/frequency of the exposed/nudity, forces the response #Metoo, to something we had already joined ourselves to, unwittingly a long time ago. 

May it be morning shows, or a season or a hyped news, all we get is the powerful and painful irony that the media we have subjected to the greatest unveiling, whom we believe we deserve full access to with the crush and harassment or the curse and their taste for invasive rumor, gossip or scandal-Was he cheating on her? Is she raped? Is she pregnant? Are they getting back again? they're definitely not like us? or are they like us?--- This sends the painful reality back to us. This comes from the mouth of those anchor person, hosts or actor/actress who's job is to deceive us because ain't their job a drama? or ain't theatre a drama? The answer to the sexual violation isn't the answer, whatever answer we derive is about the failure of answer which made... Media industry the media industry.

Psychoanalysis (Sigmund Frued) focuses on a world of fantasy that acts as a supplement. The pervasiveness of failure to answer sexual violation highlighted by #Metoo movement as a psychic failure, at the root of anxiety that fuels the backlash that imagines this will be the ruin of men or relationships; the recent suicides of some known men like Robin Williams trends now towards gender segregation? Are not man in ruins too? revolution at what cost? if men are already in ruins, that is where we begin, we not as a me and metoo minus them?

Conclusion:

The movement is about the whole of the difficulties surrounding sex and sexual differences.  It is about the problems of power and power differentials when it comes to any relationship. It's about the dimension of life that invades sexuality and psychology about it and how it deforms, damages them beyond recognition. It is about the most primitive link that can be formed between bodies, voices, between people at differing levels of power and authority along with numerous categories of social identities, social injustices and social inequalities.

Thomas Edison: The Machiavellian Prince

Thomas Edison, you read the name and you know: "Inventor of the Bulb". We grew up reading that despite being deaf (one ear) he kept on working hard. In one version we were told deafness was an aftermath of a scarlet fever or mid-ear infection, in another it was an accident in a chemical laboratory. From being a self-educated person to being America's greatest inventor, we are told his aspiring stories so that we not only put in our efforts but also look beyond limitations without making any circumstance an excuse.

Thomas Edison on google search engine's first page.

Our elders heard the same, so did me and so will our children probably. However, growing up amongst engineers i often heard them talking about Tesla and his inventions and how it wasn't Edison's work in the first place. Later on, i came to a conclusion that whatever is it about Edison or Tesla is simply like a prevailed misconception people have about Freud. Just as people say Freud is a Father of Psychology similarly layman like us (US: NOT BEING ENGINEERS) keep on attributing Edison about some work which might have been of Tesla.
Note: Freud is a father of Psychoanalytic, where as William James is a Father of Psychology: No one's a Machiavellian as per my knowledge.

Who's a Machiavellian? What is Machiavellianism? (Most of you might be wondering how this word is pronounced, so new right?) Machiavellianism in psychology refers to a personality trait in which a person is so focused on their own interest that they'll manipulate, deceive or even exploit others. In simpler words it's an art of being deceptive to get ahead. Thomas Edison was a Machiavellian Prince? Yes, i felt so as i went on a mission to read about uncommon rivarly of Edison and Tesla.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison#List_of_people_who_worked_for_Edison

A young Serbian Scientist named Nikola Tesla was a brilliant inventor, however, his life of woe and tribulation started when he came to America in 1884, persuaded by Charles Batchelor (Plant Manager and personal friend of Thomas Edison). He came penniless to America but head full of ideas. However, a mistake he did was to commit to Edison's company who was then known as a thief of ideas than for inventing anything useful, by those who worked for him. In words of Edison himself: "Everybody steals in commerce and industry. I've stolen a lot myself. But I know how to steal."

When Tesla met Edison, he was hired right away. Tesla offered to redesign primitive Edison Dynamos completely. The kind of work he proposed seems to be a monumental task that could last years without paying off but Edison offered 50 thousand Dollars to him. Tesla worked 18 hours a day for his company where in a period of one year produced improved version of dynamo with automatic control. When finally time came to receive his well-deserved money, instead he was given a small raise with a reply from Edison: "Tesla, you don't understand our American Humor!"

Tesla's obsession was to create an alternating current system (AC) of electricity. Edison believed that workable system has to be based on Direct-Current (DC) system of electricity. Edison not only went against Tesla's research but later did all he could to sabotage him. When Serbian scientist Tesla was successful in creating an alternate current (AC) system, Edison went furious. He ruined Tesla's reputation by publicly declaring that AC system was unsafe to use. In order to prove, Edison captured all kind of household pets and electrocuted them to death with AC current. Later on in 1890 he convinced New York State Prison authorities to organize world's first execution by electrocution through an AC current. However, this turned out to be cruelest state authorized execution since the charge was too weak to kill human beings. Previously all electrocution had been done on small creatures only and hence the prisoners for execution was only half killed.

The AC system which Nikola Tesla designed is still the standard today-however after the patents were filed in his name (when he was working at Pittsburgh Magnate: George Westinghouse's electricity company), many other scientists came forward to claim for the invention stating that they had laid a groundwork for Tesla. His name was lost in the shuffle, and the public came to associate the AC system with Westinghouse company itself. Almost a year later, Westinghouse was caught in takeover bid from J. Pierpont Morgan who made him withdraw the generous royalty contract he had signed with Tesla for AC system. Hence, Westinghouse explained Tesla that his electricity company would not survive if they paid him his full royalties and instead persuaded him to accept a buyout of his patents for $216000 far less than the $12Million- patents were worth at that time. Thus, financiers deprived Tesla of his patents, his money as well the credit for the greatest invention of his career which is still the standard.

Nikola Tesla is also a real inventor of a Radio, instead Guglielmo Marconi is linked with the invention. Marconi made use of a patent Tesla had filed in 1887 and his work dependent on Tesla's Research. Once again Tesla received no money and no credit to his invention (and as an old man, he lived in poverty). Tesla believed that science had nothing to do with politics and rivalries that trouble the rest of the world. He also claimed not to care for fame and riches. But as the time passed, this belief ruined his scientific career since he couldn't attract any investor where as others stole patents he had already developed and got credit for themselves.

Edison was Tesla's exactly opposite. He knew in order to attract investors he ensured all the attention he could get for himself. Edison would simply talk about future inventions: robots taking over, machines that could capture thoughts-over which he actually had no intentions or brain to work over but that made the public talk about him. He did everything in order to ensure he received more attention than Tesla who was by far the greatest scientist with brilliant ideas, but his name was far less known. Edison was not much of a scientist or thinker. He was once caught saying: "I don't need to be a mathematician because I can always hire one". 

Edison was in fact a business and public man, hitting on the opportunities to take credit even if it takes him to steal. He would deceive young mind full of ideas to work for him on a good cost and eventually giving them little cost but taking credit on his name/company. He would manipulate public opinion and intimidate others. He did not let anyone know of products that were actually superior in every way to his own gain a foothold with American public, because for him Tesla was a rival in context of his own desire to become America's greatest inventor.

In 1917, Tesla was told that he was to receive the Edison Medal of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers. He refused by saying: "You propose to honor me with a medal which I could pin upon my coat and strut for a vain hour before the members of your Institute. you would decorate my body and continue to let starve, for failure to supply recognition, my mind and its creative products, which have supplied the foundation upon which the major portion of your Institute exists"
[Reference: The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene, page 58]

The Machiavellian Prince believed that this world runs on the laws of Jungle when it comes to Power. There are animals who lives by making an effort to hunt themselves and their young ones. Where as there're others who live their lives on hunting of others. Instead of making a move themselves, they understand that others are available to do the work and they can have their stomach fed. And once you have the impression of Hyenas or Vultures, you seems to have a Godlike strength and power in entire jungle, and Lion became merely a symbol to be the puppet-king only. Being fed on creativity of others, their creativity become Edison's and Edison a genius to this world as "America's Greatest Inventor."

In David Bowie's portrayal of Tesla in the movie "The Prestige", Tesla is widely known for his theories such as terrestrial stationary waves (in simpler words he theorized that our planet can potentially be utilized as a giant conductor). In the movie, Tesla was successful in illuminating 200 lamps without a single connecting wire from as far as 25 miles away. The story goes that Tesla is basically creating electrical storms in his labs because he dared to expand upon the limited world of Edison's experiments. However, Tesla's ideas remained locked in the pages of a notebook largely because Edison had funding and investors, and Tesla did not. As a result not only Edison's name survived but world faced a delay in technological advancements that could have changed the world decades earlier-Until Tesla's notebook was opened again.

I am a psychologist by profession and has naive information regarding physics and its dynamics. This article was an effort to know the truth about people who were portrayed as heroes, who's power of Machiavellian-ism persists long after their death. This Machiavellian-ism is widespread today in many many workplaces, and has been a recently studied phenomenon in light of Industrial/Organizational (I/O) Psychology. I'll conclude the article over the quote "The Blind Hen" by Fables Gotthold Lessing (1729-1781)

"A hen who has lost her sight, and was accustomed to scratching up the earth in search of food, although blind, still continued to scratch away most diligently. Of what use was it to the industrious fool? Another sharp-sighted hen who spread her tender feel never moved from her side, and enjoyed, without scratching, the fruit of the other's labor. For as often as the blind hen scratched up a barley corn, her watchful companion devoured it."

It's All In Your Head: The case of made-up illness?

It seems half of the art and literature serves a purpose to describe iconic states of human beings. Numerous people around us try to be vocal about their struggling self to which we simply label them as "It's all in your head", "Don't over think!", "Stop being Pessimistic." or "you're simply wanna be negative." Sufferers have difficulty in being vocal about their state. 

"He said: "it's all in your head," and i said "so is everything." But he didn't get it"

Virginia Woolf.

Where as it's also a strange poverty of the language we speak that the word "depressed" or 'depression" is used to describe how a person feel when he/she is mugged for their mobile phones and to describe how somebody feels the minute before they commit suicide. 

There are three things that people generally tends to confuse:

1. Depression
2. Grief
3. Sadness

Grief can be taken as being reactive explicitly. For instance, if you have a certain kind of loss in your life and you feel incredibly unhappy. And then 6 months later, you're still deeply sad but you're functioning a little better than before: It's probably grief which will ultimately resolve itself in sometime. But if you experience a catastrophic loss, and you feel terribly sad and 6 months later you can hardly function at all, then it's probably depression which was triggered by the loss you experienced 6 months ago. People think of depression as being just sadness. It's a lot, lot and a lot of sadness and much too much grief at far too slight a cause.

People suffering from depression found themselves doing a little of work, little to think and even little to feel. It's a kind of nullity they experience. And then at the sametime their anxiety settles in. They find themselves being afraid all the time without knowing what it is they are afraid of. One of the things that often get lost in discussions of depression is that they know whatever they're going through is ridiculous. They know its ridiculous while they experience it since they can see majority of the people managing themselves for work, for lunch or as simple as taking a shower and yet they're nonetheless in its grip, unable to figure out anyway around it. 

The opposite of Depression is not happiness, it was never happiness. According to Andrew Solomon, it's vitality. It's vitality that seems to sweep away from lives of people who suffered from Depression. As simple as answering back to friends, or to decide for lunch for which they'll go through to get food out, put in a plate, cut it off, chew it off and swallow it- seems so much of an effort. For them their own state makes it all such a pain that they begin to think that it's too painful to be alive. The only reason at times which stops them to kill themselves is not to hurt other people around. They'd lie in bed, staring at the ceiling, thinking to answer the call but couldn't reach out their own arm in picking up the phone and answer. 

People are commonly heard of saying: "Isn't depression part of what people are supposed to experience?" Didn't we evolve to have depression? Isn't it part of your personality?" As a psychologist, in simple words where i can help you distinguish between clinical depression and mere sadness and grief is: "Mood is Adaptive". Being able to have sadness, fear, joy, pleasure and all the other moods that we have are incredibly valuable and vital. And clinical depression is something that happens when system breaks and collapses-It's maladaptive. 

People then argue: "Well, is it continuous with normal sadness?" In simpler words, I can say that yes, it's continuous with normal sadness. There's a certain amount of continuity in a same way there's continuity between having daily maintenance in your house when it requires a little touch up and what happens when you leave the house for 50 years under rain, sun, snow. It rusts through until it crumbles and simply becomes a pile of orange dust. Depression is that Orange dust which accumulates over time without taken care of, and that's the one we are setting out to address. The house now which is totally useless, useless for others and useless for its existence. I am sure, here i make my point of how utterly difficult this state is where person feels utterly useless, is paralyzed and is burdened up with mere labeling as "It's all in your head."

People then ask: "How will the psychologist make it better? medication works? does it make them happy?" There's no exact answer to it. But I for sure knows that when their depression is addressed they don't feel sad about having to answer friends, having lunch or taking a shower. Even if they feel sad (because hey, isn't sadness normal to feel?) without nullity. They can feel sad about just as you feel sad over breakups, professional disappointments, politics and ozone-layer changes in atmosphere. 

I have been to Psychological treatments facility and Rehabilitation and have interacted who managed or overcome their illness. I interviewed such people about how would they describe depression. The responses came to the mutual conclusion: "Slower way of being dead".  I hereby, confidently mention because it has to be recognized that slow way of being dead will actually lead to actual deadness. This is something serious because it's leading mental disability worldwide and people die of it everyday. According to World Health Organization, this disability is enormous and epidemic in nature.

Depression is a result of genetic vulnerability which it makes its distribution likely to be even among population. Circumstances which might trigger their depression are likely to be more severe for people who are impoverished in terms of finance as well as awareness. Finance has been a major concern for majority of the population in developing countries. But it makes it equal for those who have a better life because struggle the same because little or lack of knowledge to seek treatment. With a stigma attached, for instance of not referring to psychologist is one's defence of not being "pagal" yet. Even if  a person himself wants to feel better, loved ones would stop because deep down inside they can't accept the fact that matter can be this severe. 

Depression is exhausting. It takes up so much of their time and energy, and silence about it, really does make the depression worse. I almost regularly come across such people and I therefore, easily concludes that depression is a family secret: unheard, unspoken, unexpressed. As soon as people open up you find out one in family is definitely suffering, someone's sister, someone's cousin, aunt, uncle and list is endless. Solomon Andrew wrote about his conference once he attended. On first day of a conference, a lady came up to him telling about her depression, medication and how she hasn't told her husband about it because she thought he wouldn't understand. On the third day of the conference, husband of the same lady came up to him about his depression, medication and how he hasn't told his wife because he thought she wouldn't understand. They both were hiding their medication in different places in the same bedroom. 

People under treatment of depression take medication as well as therapies. In simpler words, chemical cure as well as psychological cure both have a role to play. Depression at times is braided so deep into them that there's no way separating it from their characteristics and personality. They become better and then sometimes relapse and become better and relapse and then better. This process is different for everybody. However, their will to be better is something which makes it all so optimistic. Let's for a moment think of a cancer. Cancer leads us directly to chemotherapy and radiation and surgery and what not of a toughest medical procedure? Yet it doesn't ensure a complete cure. People goes into remission then relapse then remission then relapse and so on. People suffering from such illness still had buried in them, somewhere enough optimism to reach out for one more attempt of being better. All the difference is that there's hardly any stigma attached to get a cure for cancer, but for depression the world shut its doors to simply "Stop being pessimistic!"

Having depression is not something to be positive about. It paralyzes, makes one non-functional as well as useless. However, the optimism to fight it and the resilience to keep going is what makes it different. I have been dealing with Adolescents especially for past 2 years, and they gives me an insight. Their Disturbed Self forced them to seek out for help, to find and cling to joy, to cleave to the reasons for living and life's something worth living for. And really life is something worth living for and there's absolutely no harm in seeking out help. 

My dearest friend chef shamsher has taken an initiative at his vlog for mental health awareness under the segment "Sakht Baatain". Check out the following link where Oroba Tasnim Siddiqi talks about her own experience of suffering from it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydqCOG6ilI