Thursday, February 23, 2006

Definitions For the "Superior" Amongst "Us"

In The Elitist Jargon Club
By Patricia Lefave, Labelled, D.D.(P)

The terms I choose to use, for the most part, speak to the average person such as I consider myself to be, and hopefully do so in a straightforward way, without the supposedly "hidden" meaning of the type of jargon that is frequently employed by our "superiors." I strongly suspect this is most often done to make themselves feel "special" and to give themselves the feeling of "belonging" to an elitist club or organization.

Example: The word "functional"
Dictionary definition:
1. Of or concerning a function.
2. Designed for, or adapted to, a particular purpose.
3. Capable of performing: operative.
4. Path: existing with no apparent change in the structure of an organism.

When I write the term "functional family," I am using it mainly in terms of number 3 above.
When doctors use it, especially psychiatrists, that is often not the case. More often they mean number 2 above, but with a "hidden" meaning such as, "The patient has told us something (fabricated it) "designed for a particular purpose." That "purpose" is often assumed to be "seeking fame" or "Just seeking attention," when "really," what we are "claiming" happened, did not happen at all.

Sometimes, when they use the word "functional" you will see along with it the amused eyeglow (I am creating this as a term for the patients' understanding of their shrinks thinking and behaviour) which accompanies their assessment." They do not know that "we" see that very clearly of course, and even when we say we do, that is defined by others as OUR perception problem and NEVER that of our self deluded assessors. Sometimes, the only thing missing in their act is the little nudge and wink to their associate jargon users.

In fact, if I were to say something like this directly to a shrink, it is more likely that I would be getting my label changed to indicate to any other members of the Caduceus Club how supposedly "manipulative" I am, indicated by my attempt to tell them that a large part of this is actually their OWN perception problem. Changing my label may very well be an indicator of their "reaction" problem as well. The label most likely to be given to me in this case would be "Borderline. "

For the experts do not believe for one minute that there is anything wrong with THEIR perception or reactions--very much like the autocrats running dysfunctional families don't believe it either. To them, the problem is ALWAYS in the other person. So they "validate themselves by invalidating the other point of view."

This may sound very familiar by those doing this to me in my own fascinating case.

No comments: