Warrior Healer
How Will I Know: A Voice And A Message Live On
by Devorah Fox on 02/17/12Whitney Houston had the voice, and the face, and according to many who knew her best, the heart of an angel. Her death has touched the nation and caused many to ask, what, if anything, could have preserved her life. At the time of this writing, no one knows for certain what killed her, but I believe it can be said with certainty that her extensive experiences with substance abuse did not make her body stronger.
Discussing Houston’s life and death with television host Martin Bashir on MSNBC, Georgetown University Professor of Sociology Michael Eric Dyson pondered how people who are close to a performing artist with a substance abuse problem could know when that person has gone too far. His underlying premise was that it can be the nature of, and possibly necessary for, a performing artist to have personal demons like substance abuse with which they wrestle. As I pondered this question myself, the words of Houston’s hit “How Will I Know,” played in my mind.
Dyson made some important observations, the most important of which I believe is that measures must be taken so performing artists can carve out protective boundaries for themselves. To be up there at the top, alone before the crowds, requires that a person have privacy in areas where they want privacy, space for healthy relationships, unselfish guidance and structure for support, rest when rest is needed…. One only need think of the grueling schedule Michael Jackson was looking forward to when he died. Mega artists may be superstars, but they are not super humans. They have all the same needs the rest of us have, and many of those needs are strained more than we may ever know.
However, when it comes to Dyson’s assertion that substance abuse is at any point essential to creativity, I have to part ways. It is always easier to emulate a person’s weakness than their strength, and such myths may prove damaging to the impressionable. Yes some artists, black and white, male and female, have abused drugs. But the overwhelming number of successful artists do not abuse drugs, and the overwhelming number of people who do abuse drugs are not artists. Some are good people. Some are bad people. But I have never met a human being whom drugs made better.
Some African American female performing artists, like Billy Holiday and Etta James, had personal histories marked by the tragedy of drug abuse, and this may have created a mystique around drugs in the African American community. Such a mystique can make drugs seem attractive or even essential to young people who don’t know better. But I would argue against drug abuse being essential for their creativity, or Houston’s. When Houston began her career she was perceived as the “good girl.” Some see that image as having changed during her relationship with Bobby Brown, whom she married in 1992, after three years of courtship. If a person in Houston’s situation were to ask me, to borrow from the words of her song, “How can I know if he really loves me?” I would answer, “If he gives you drugs, he doesn’t really love you.” He may have feelings of love for you, but “love” is also a verb and if he is introducing you to things that could potentially harm you, he is not loving you—no matter what warm and fuzzy feelings (love as a noun) he may be holding inside for you.
This brings me to Professor Dyson’s question. How will you know when a person you love has gone too far when it comes to substance abuse? My answer to Professor Dyson’s question is as simple and direct as my answer to the preceding question. If a person is using an illegal substance, with all the risks that implies, or using a legal substance in a way it has not been prescribed, then the person has gone too far. It’s time for an intervention.
I strongly disagree with Professor Dyson’s premise that a substance abuse problem indicates a personal or inner demon, or is in any way a necessary part of the creative process that needs to be given rope. The rope it is given will form a noose that strangles the creative process. There are enough joys and trials in life for a creative person to transform into art without adding to these the ups and downs of drug use. Heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, and anxiolytics are external substances that once taken begin to make physical and psychological changes to the person who has taken them. Ultimately, if abused, these substances will lead to the person’s undoing. Some may be more susceptible than others, but the person taking these drugs does not necessarily have personal or inner demons to begin with. The demons, if you want to call them that, come from the drugs themselves.
In addition to the chemical changes substances can create within a person, a person’s outward behavior may change in ways such that the person begins to construct a new narrative for their life, a new personal history, a new identity. Temporary effects of substances can cause people to be late, or to get into an accident, or to otherwise disappoint the people in their life and themselves. If by nature they are a good, caring, considerate person then these failures will likely cause guilt. This is not a sign that the person has an inner demon. To the contrary, it is evidence that the person is not a sociopath. Unfortunately, once a person has been introduced to the quick emotional fix of substance abuse, they are more vulnerable to trying to numb the pain of guilt with more substance abuse. Add to this the physiological changes in the person’s mind and body that take place with continued abuse, along with the agony they are likely to feel during withdrawal once they have become addicted, and it becomes very difficult for a person who has started down this path to turn around and go home to the person they once were.
But the process I am speaking of is due to the introduction of a destructive influence into the body and the life of an otherwise healthy person. I consider it quite possible that had Houston not been introduced to drugs, she would not have wrestled with “demons.” Sure, she would likely have had to deal with anxiety, loneliness, sorrow, and all the emotions with which we all have to deal—magnified to astronomical proportions given her position on the planet. But when you think about it, prior to taking drugs, Houston was performing in front of huge crowds, touring, and in her greatest successes she was facing down attacks to the core of her identity from those who would say she wasn’t “black enough.” I’d say she dealt with all of this better than just about anybody.
So why did Houston become involved with Brown and drugs? I don’t know. Maybe she was bowing to criticism and trying to be “more black”—whatever that means. If that is the case, than all the more reason to break through the mystique of the tragic, drug addicted black artist here and now. Houston’s artistry was not contingent on drug use. I think we can all agree she performed better without drugs. Maybe she was simply given something before a show or after a show to deal with the pressure behind the drive to be the best in the world at what she did, and wrongly started to connect being the best with use of the drug. Maybe she was given something in a moment of intimate bonding, and the heightening effect of the substance on the sex, made the sex seem more than it was. There are people who have never had sex without the concurrent use of a substance, and cannot even image sex without the use of a substance. Maybe she was with such a person who brought her into his world. Maybe she confused the intensity of the feeling with love.
Houston’s voice lives on, as does the message of her untimely death. When I was a little girl, every year I would watch repeats of Judy Garland in The Wizard of OZ. It was a high point of the year for me back in those days before VCRs…. As a young woman Garland was wide-eyed, healthy looking and in command of her space, like Houston at the same age. When, Garland got her own variety show, I became familiar with the person she became as an adult. She appeared skinny, and shaky, and lost. I would not have recognized her. When she died at age 47 my mother told me she had died from pills and liquor. There was no mystique of the artist stated or implied. Just a talented woman with a problem that killed her. My mother made a reference to how Garland had looked on the variety show and said Garland had been abusing pills and liquor for a long time. I made the connection that there was nothing romantic, artistic, or appealing in any way about addiction. Addiction was destructive. It was to be avoided. It is my hope that little girls who grew up watching Whitney Houston will celebrate her phenomenal talent, her generous heart, her indomitable courage that kept rising up again and again and again—and I hope they will hold in mind that everything that they love and admire most, possibly even the woman herself, could be destroyed by something as superfluous to her greatness as substance abuse.
** Nothing connected with this blog or this website should be considered counseling or treatment. **
The Morning After Pill in the Age of Pedophiles
by Devorah Fox on 12/08/11I am interrupting my Toddler Moms and Dads series for a matter that is too important not to address in a timely manner. Some have been criticizing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for overturning the Food and Drug Administration’s plan to remove the age limit on Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd’s Plan B One-Step birth control commonly called the “morning after pill,” and make it available over-the-counter to children sixteen-years-old and younger without a prescription. I have even heard some claim that this was a strictly political move on the part of Sebelius and the President. Currently, the drug is available without a prescription to females 17 years of age and older, but they must show proof of age and receive instruction from the pharmacist. Children under the age of 17 years must obtain a prescription. To be effective the drug must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.
I fully understand the desire to make reproductive healthcare rights available to all persons irrespective of age. However, in the current environment, where most of us are painfully aware of the sexual abuse of children, I find the argument in favor of over-the-counter availability for the morning after pill to be shallow. The pregnancy of a girl of 11-16 years of age is not just a biological matter, but a bio-psycho-social matter that cannot be resolved by the taking of a pill. If a girl of 11-16 years becomes pregnant, there is a good chance that the male who has made her pregnant is over 16 years of age, and may well even be over 21. If the morning after pill were available over-the-counter, such a male could purchase the pill, even in large quantities, and have a younger girl take the pill each time after he has unprotected sex with her. The child might not even know what she is taking. Such a pill being available over-the-counter is a pedophile’s dream. The administration has cited the possibility of children 11-years-old not fully understanding the written instructions as a major reason for having an age cutoff for obtaining the drug without a prescription. The problem, in my opinion, is not so much whether an 11-year-old girl would understand the accompanying written instructions, but whether she (or those younger) would even see the instructions.
Making it necessary for a girl under 17 years of age to obtain a prescription means that hopefully responsible adults will become aware of her situation, and make themselves available for guidance. If the girl is not comfortable telling a parent, there are Planned Parenthoods and other clinics that can treat young people regarding reproductive issues in many states without informing the child’s parents, and most sexually active females are aware of such places. Some are already going to clinics for birth control and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, and those who are sexually active and not using birth control might want to consider the unplanned situation as an opportunity to discuss with clinic staff how to make better plans for the future—and the role of human sexuality in those overall plans for their future. This opportunity for counseling and expanded reproductive care is not present in an over-the-counter situation. Just as important however, is the fact that these clinics are mandatory child abuse reporters and if they learn that a child has been statutorily and/or otherwise raped they can intercede and hopefully put a stop to the abuse for that child and others who may be preyed upon.
Furthermore, Planned Parenthood currently provides confidential treatment and birth control free of charge to those in need and many clinics provide the same. Providing the morning after pill through clinics may be the most treatment-rich, private and cost effective way for a child—or an adult—to receive the morning after pill. Making the morning after pill available over the counter would just likely mean that it could be shoplifted more often than it is purchased.
Regarding the claim that not having over-the-counter availability to the morning after pill unnecessarily subjects adult women to the ill regard of pharmacists, all I can say is, “Get over it.” There are bigger concerns. Adult women already see pharmacists for birth control pills and diaphragms…, and most pharmacists are professional in this regard. Pharmacists who for religious reasons object to the morning after pill would probably also have problems with other forms of oral contraception and likely would simply not carry it. The needs of children must come first and, in my opinion, making the morning after pill available over-the-counter is not meeting their needs.
Devorah Ann Fox, Psy.D.
Nothing connected with this blog or website should be considered to be counseling, psychotherapy, or treatment of any kind.
Toddler Moms and Dads: Defusing the time Bomb
by Devorah Fox on 08/25/11Toddler Moms and Dads: Defusing the Time Bomb
They’re only two, three, possibly four. You’re 20, 30, maybe more. So how did this tiny Titan get so good at waging battle? Why just a year or two ago they could barely talk. Now they rule the roost. And you? You are their indentured servant. How did that happen! You cook their food—they spit it out. You bring them to go potty before their nap, and they wet their bed instead. You pick up toys from one end of your home to the other—and now their new favorite sport is throwing things. You may have even been tempted to fling a towel or two yourself. So who’s the toddler now? As explained in the introductory article, “Toddler Moms and Dads: Training the Troops,” the word “toddler” in the series’ title primarily refers to the moms and dads, since for most moms and dads parenting is a somewhat new experience in which they are not so sure- footed.
If your child is having a tantrum and you don’t know what to do, sometimes the best tack to take is retreat. I’m not saying that you comply with whatever they are demanding. I’m just saying that after explaining and saying, “No,” and, “Stop that,” a couple of times, you might want to stop fighting. The last thing you want to do is become engaged in the sort of unending contest of wills where you wind up threatening and throwing your weight around day after day—knee deep in a quagmire of toys, tiptoeing through shrieks and screams from beneath noise-canceling headphones that could muffle the blast of a landmine, taking kicks and blows to your knees and chest and wherever their tiny feet and hands can reach at a given moment. Before you blow your stack, it may be time for you to give yourself a time out.
One strategy, whether at home or in public, might be to practice your Ann Curry/Brian Williams NBC anchor voice. Physically bring yourself down to your child’s level so that you can look at each other eye to eye. Then lower your voice. If you feel your own anger escalating—take a breath and slow down by purposefully slowing down your speech and softening your movements. If your child has come to expect you to remain erect and escalate hysterically right alongside them, this change in your physical, vocal and emotional level (as you take everything down a few notches and sail in under their rage) may be enough to take them off guard and enable them to reset their emotions. Provide your child an opportunity to calmly verbalize their discontent, and provide yourself the opportunity to consider their wishes and yours, and how best to respond to both.
If this does not work and you are in a public place, like a store, after expressing that the behavior they are exhibiting is unacceptable, you may want to let something interesting catch your attention and begin to explore on your own. It could be something as simple as reading the labels on cereal packages in the grocery store; or removing a few shoes from a rack in a clothing store, trying them on, looking at them in the mirror, etc. Be captivated by the object of your interest. When you shift your attention from your child’s tantrum to the pretty shoes, your child may shift their attention too. Let them make the first move. If your child shows an interest, let them participate in the new activity. Remember, although you may be rejecting your child’s prior behavior, you are not rejecting your child. Ask your child which shoes (or whatever) they like for you. Thank them for their input. If you see something affordable that you like, this might be a good time to reward yourself. If not, it might be a good time to demonstrate that it is possible to look at and appreciate nice things without buying them. (If they have just thrown a tantrum because you wont buy them something, be subtle. You don’t want to remind them of that fact.)
If the child has changed their behavior and exhibited good and helpful behavior, you might want to let them pick out colorful socks or a shirt or hat or something they like for themselves as a reward, linking the receipt of the object to the good behavior they exhibited. However, considering the prior tantrum, this is probably not the best time to provide a toy or a tasty treat. A more neutral gift like an article of clothing given with pleasure, praise and love, or simply giving lots of hugs and praise, could reinforce the good behavior without reinforcing the preceding bad behavior. You do not want your child to develop a manipulative trait wherein they throw a tantrum and then subsequently act nicely in order to get a toy. The likelihood of their developing such a pattern to get a pair of socks is more remote than with high child-valued objects like toys and candy. Do not reward bad behavior in the hopes it will stop. The behavior must stop before rewards are given—not after.
If you’re home when your child is throwing a tantrum and you think the time is right and the environment safe, you may want to just quietly walk into your bedroom and lie down. You might be surprised when your child’s tantrums cease and they quietly crawl onto your bed beside you. You don’t need to use words. You can just let your breathing synchronize as you snooze together. While discussing with psychiatrist Dr. Joshua Weiner the pros and cons of parent/child bed sharing on the August 2, 2011 segment of “Parenting Today,” NBC News chief medical editor, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, and “Today” anchor Matt Lauer spoke of “regulated breathing for mom and infant” as one of the benefits of “co-sleeping.” Something as simple as allowing your breath to synchronize with your child’s breath can be one of the best parenting tips for reducing stress and strengthening the parent/child bond. Wherever you stand on parent/child bed sharing, attuning yourself to your child’s breathing during a shared nap, or even just while sitting together on the couch, can help you to develop a peaceful harmonious relationship with your child.
Or maybe you might want to stoke each others' hands. If you feel the moment calls for words, a simple “I guess we just both need a nap” could say it all. Don’t be afraid to let the moment happen. It can also be good to keep a few children's books by your bedside for such moments. If you have the energy you can start reading one of the books on your own, and should your child enter your room, you can draw them closer by reading the book to them or with them. Or maybe you might want to just listen to what they have to say. If necessary, let them know that you can hear them better when they don’t yell. Listening to your child and letting them know that their concerns are heard is one of the best things you can do for them.
Taking preemptive naps together can also stop problem behavior before it happens. Be in tune with your child. Parents have busy schedules and there can be a temptation to pack up one’s child like one packs a suitcase and drag them around from place to place. Unlike suitcases, children have physical and emotional needs. Listen to your child. If your child complains don’t just interpret that as a threat to your authority or an objection to overcome. If they have difficulty expressing themselves, ask questions, show an interest, help them to put their feelings into words and try to meet their needs. You may be bigger and older, but that doesn’t mean you should always get your way. Tend to your child’s non-verbals too. If you notice you and/or your child tend to get hungry or tired or cranky at a particular time, you may want to schedule a little milk and graham cracker or cereal, a trip to the bathroom, and a nap for that time as part of your daily routine. That time of day is probably not a time you want to be socializing with your friends, or waiting on line together in a store, or bank, or government building; so plan those things for times when you think you and your child will be up for them. A child can benefit from having built-in times in the day when they know they will have you to themselves, and some of these times should be “downtime.”
If you pray, moments of turmoil can also be excellent times to model prayer with your child. Some people use a prayer book or card, or stand or kneel or use beads when they pray. If your child enters the room when you are praying they may become curious and ask what you are doing. Instead of responding, “Nothing,” and locking them out of your relationship with the Divine Presence, you can invite them in to a shared relationship with the Divine Presence by explaining what prayer is and maybe teaching them a simple contemplative prayer like, “Thank you God for loving me.” By doing so, you have shown your child that when stressed one of the things you do is pray and give thanks for what is good. This is much better than demonstrating that when you are stressed you scream and hit. After all, it is the former not the latter behavior that you want your child to emulate, and if you do not demonstrate it, they cannot emulate it. You may find that your relationship with your child blossoms when the Divine is allowed to be Present in it.
Your relationship with your child is all-important. It is much easier to teach and guide someone with whom you have a good relationship, and this is all the more true with your child. Once you have developed the foundation of a peaceful harmonious relationship with your child, dealing with difficulties becomes easier.
If you have already developed a pattern of engaging in combat with your child, defusing time bombs in these ways may be more difficult and may take more time and consistency. However, these sorts of intimate interludes are the building blocks of a relationship with your child that will hopefully survive past the toddler years through the teens and into adulthood. You may even find these moments resurfacing when you are in your old age as you lie in your hospital bed. Your relationship with your child is one of the most significant relationships you will ever have. Through their relationship with you, your child can develop an overall sense of security and learn how to read the emotions of other people, develop empathy, express their thoughts and feelings, act cooperatively, practice self-regulation and self-soothing, strengthen self-confidence, and love.
By Devorah Ann Fox, PsyD
** Nothing connected with this blog or this website should be considered counseling or treatment. **
Toddler Moms and Dads: Training the Troops
by Devorah Fox on 08/16/11Toddler Moms and Dads: Training the Troops
This is an introductory article that places the raising of children into a social context. Other articles that provide more hands-on help will follow it. There is nothing any of us can do that is more important than raising up the next generation. For that reason, as some kids are starting school and others are remaining home with caregivers, I will be running this series called “Toddler Moms and Dads.” Though toddlers are generally considered to be children roughly between the ages of two and four (give or take a few months in either direction), in these initial articles I’m going to be addressing issues with post-infant children up to the age of five because it is during this post-infant preschool period that some of the most important socialization lessons are being taught, and often by parents who don’t feel so sure footed themselves. In a sense, parents of preschoolers are toddling into parenthood as much as their offspring are toddling into life—and even if you have already had one child, that is no guarantee the next child wont present completely different challenges. It could be argued that parents are still toddling to some degree or another right up until their children reach adulthood. For that reason, the word “Toddler” in these titles refers more to the Moms and Dads than to their kids.
Parents are presumed to innately know how to parent with no formal training. This unreasonable expectation can produce a tremendous amount of unnecessary and undeserved anxiety, stress, and feelings of inferiority in parents. Parenting in modern society in the USA can be complex. Just doing what comes naturally, or doing what your parents or their parents did may not be good for your child or you. It could even get you arrested, or cause your child to be ostracized when they enter school. Some parents may be eager for information and guidance, while others may become offended and may view helpful suggestions, even from pediatricians and nursery school teachers, as interference.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has a website, www.healthychildren.org, where parents and those caring for or working with young children can gain valuable information to help shape expectations and learn techniques that address developmental milestones such as: the fact that children do not have the ability to chew in a grinding fashion until around the age of five, and therefore need their food provided in tiny pieces; and children under the age of five may still have poor hand eye co-ordination, while those approaching their fourth and fifth birthdays can have a temporary decrease in ability to process external stimuli from their environment creating a sensory overload as they begin to engage with their surroundings more physically.
It would be nice if basic child development and parenting classes were a regular part of all junior high or high school curriculum, so that important evidence-based information can be conveyed in a neutral setting. After all, many teenagers are left responsible for their younger siblings for at least a portion of the day, some young people start baby sitting for neighbors by the time they’re 13, 14, or 15, and some adolescents and teens even become parents themselves. On a practical level these young people need information about child development and parenting more than they need most other academic subjects. Furthermore, learning just how much goes into properly raising a child may help curb premature desires to parent in those searching for ways to have their own unresolved emotional needs answered.
Such classes may also help young people who were the victims of bad parenting break cross-generational bad parenting cycles, and understand that problems in their home may not be all their fault. The introduction of parenting and developmental material in the classroom could open the door to asking for help and receiving counseling for some young people in need—or even possibly present an opportunity to alert authorities of abuse at home. On a professional note, regular classes in child development and parenting at the junior high and high school level may inspire some to pursue a path toward becoming a pediatrician, or child psychologist, or teacher, or social worker….
Unfortunately, many schools still think it more important that children dissect formaldehyde soaked fetal pigs and pipette frogs. Consequently, many parents—even those over 20—learn how to parent after they have become parents, not before, and their little darlings become their guinea pigs. Your kids may be lucky. They may have perfect parents; and you may have perfect children. But even in the most perfect of relationships there are challenges. It helps to know in advance that although your toddler may exhibit empathy (showing concern and even sadness when you look sad) they still have to learn how to understand another person’s point of view, and that will take time and brain development. Your child really has no concept of how difficult they are making your life when they throw a tantrum in a store, and they don’t really mean to cause you pain when they hit or kick you. These behaviors are developmental not characterological. Your child is simply letting something that’s inside come out. The effect of that emotional purging (joyous or hostile) on the outside world is beyond their realm of comprehension. Calmly explaining the effects of their behavior on you and others helps, but don’t expect them to get it first time around. Depending on the age and development of the child it could take a year of teachable moments or more. Unfortunately, I’ve even known some adults who appear to act with no regard for the effects of their behavior on others—though that may be somewhat different. That often is characterological.
It may require some changes in public policy to give the nation’s parents the training and support they need. Although in future months I will address issues around our educational system more specifically, I would like to take this moment to suggest a few changes to consider. In addition to the inclusion of child development and parenting classes within the curriculum to help raise up a generation of competent confident parents, we also need to look at how to best serve families today. Those reviewing our tax policy might consider whether children would benefit more if instead of giving certain deductions and credits to their parents on their behalf, the funds were given schools to: 1) provide preschool services, 2) lengthen the school day for children to be in school from nine to five while most parents are at work, 3) provide children a healthy breakfast, lunch and 4 p.m. “tea-time” snack, 4) increase the teacher/child ratio and add teacher’s aids to classrooms, and 5) provide uniforms. Our current policy is a relic from when kids had stay at home moms, families that needed their labor, and communities that were relatively safe. Times have changed and changes in how we use our school systems could dramatically improve how we serve children who are entering these changing times and the families that raise them.
** Nothing connected with this blog or this website should be considered counseling or treatment. **
Fakakta
by Devorah Fox on 08/02/11
I was delighted the other week to hear Jon Stewart use the word "fakakta" on "The Daily Show." I believe he was speaking to conservative columnist Bill Kristol at the time, and he introduced the word referring to it as an expression of his own people. Then, recognizing that Kristol is also Jewish he expanded the reference to say “our people.” But you don’t have to be Jewish to love the word “fakakta,” to paraphrase an old Levy’s Rye commercial—I grew up on Levy’s Rye.
For a definition of “fakakta” you can go to www.urbandictionary.com, where you can also get some “fakakta” T-shirts, hats and mugs. No, seriously, I mean you can get T-shirts, hats and mugs with the word “fakakta” printed on them. Otherwise, I would not have put the word in quotation marks.
On the other hand, you can go with my definition, which is a hodgepodge of scanning the internet, hearing the word used, and using it myself and being understood—yes, I too use “fakakta.” So what does “fakakta” mean to me? Well it can mean “crazy,” though generally not in the diagnosable sense. So, if you are looking for a rude yet politically correct way to say somebody (or preferably just their behavior) is nuts, you can use the word “fakakta,” as in, “That was a pretty fakakta stunt you just pulled.” Note: if using the word “fakakta,” for the word “crazy” here, you would not be going with the Beat Generation version of “crazy,” as in, “Crazy, man!” which is not to be confused with “crazy man.” The former is an ejaculation (no, not that kind—I mean an ejaculation of the grammatical kind, which is complete in and of itself). It is generally meant as a compliment, whereas the latter usage is that of a noun and its adjective in search of a verb, and is rarely intended as a compliment.
Generally speaking, somebody who does a lot of fakakta stuff is a bit of a meshugganah, though not as cute. (Go back to www.urbandictionary.com for a definition of meshugganah, where you can also find some “meshuggah” T-shirts, hats and mugs. Caution: you will also find some rude English as well.) It is possible, though not common, to use the word “meshuggah” in an endearing way—not so “fakakta.” Sometimes somewhat softer than crazy, “fakakta” can also mean something that does not quite make sense to one as in, “The machinations of Washington are fakakta.” However, no one ever finds such machinations in the least bit cute.
Given its negative connotation, “fakakta” can also be used for that other German/Yiddish word I prefer to some of its’ English counterparts. That word is “dreck,” which can mean excrement, dirt or worthless trash. (You can find a definition of “dreck” at www.urbandictionary.com, where you can also find some “dreck” T-shirts, hats…. Caution: you will also find some rude English as well.) An example of this usage of “fakakta” might be, “Your excuse is fakakta.”
So, why was I particularly delighted to hear Stewart use the word “fakakta?” Well, because as rude as it may be, to my mind it is not nearly as rude as that other “f-word” he appears to use so often—though I wouldn’t know for sure because it’s always bleeped out when I view. You know the word I mean. The word that I am told comes from English bobbies writing the initials of “for unlawful carnal knowledge” in their summons books back when attaining such knowledge in that manner was unlawful in England. Which brings me to another definition of “fakakta” that I have used and heard used. That definition is— How do I put this politely? Let me just say, when I say something is “fakakta,” I usually mean it is ‘for unlawful carnal kowledged-up.’ You get the gist—without the curse.
I believe this last sense, is the sense in which Stewart was using the word, and that is why I was so delighted to hear him use it. In truth, I’d like him and other comics to replace that other f-word with “fakakta” wherever and whenever the word fits. I know at least Stewart and his more tame counterpart, Stephen Colbert, unlike some others, make sure the other f-word is bleeped by the time the word leaves their mouths and hits the airwaves. But what does that communicate—really? On the one hand, it communicates that that particular word is not fit for general consumption across a broad spectrum of people and venues—no matter how aptly it describes certain situations. Good for them in that. But it also communicates something else. It communicates that grown men, in this case two very cool grown men whom many would like to emulate, cannot control their mouths, and require an external censor to bleep them. Not such a good thing to communicate—even as a spoof. This is especially ironic since Stewart and Colbert made such a very good show at their “Rally to Restore Sanity” (and I mean it—I watched the whole wonderful thing) of bringing civility back to the political discourse—attacking in particular newspersons, whom I, frankly, have never heard use the f-word on air—bleeped or otherwise. Where’s a mirror when you really need one.
The issue here is one of locus of control. Psychologists are big on talking about locus of control. Let me explain briefly. If a person is said to generally have an external locus of control, it means the person tends to view things in their own life—including their own behavior—as dependent on something outside themselves as the source of power; they tend to see others—not themselves—as the responsible parties; and they tend to look to external mediators (like a bleeping censor) to set limits or provide permission for them. If a person has an internal locus of control, it means they tend to view themselves as the source of power over things in their own life; they tend to see themselves as the responsible party for what they do and what happens to them; and they tend to set their own limits for themselves. Although it is both realistic and important to recognize external centers of power, and some things that involve networks of people—like the banking industry—require external regulation; when it comes down to personal behavior, generally speaking, I believe it most advantageous to self-regulate when possible.
I realize that some have achieved great success with overcoming addictive behavior through 12-step programs by daily employing the second step, i.e. by professing that they “Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.” But please note that the word “Power” in that context is capitalized and even YHVH in the Garden gave Adam choice, basically saying, “It’s up to you mate. Choose wisely.” (Those with an internal locus of control who are overcoming addictions, but for whom 12-step programs are not appealing, may want to view www.smartrecovery.org.)
Back in the Beat Generation, Lenny Bruce (who had his own fatal battle with addiction) broke language and social barriers, and even the law by using that other f-word in public during his stand-up comedy performances. For this perceived offense to polite society, Bruce got arrested, and arrested, and arrested. Later, the much-loved Hippy Dippy Weatherman, George Carlin, used the word as part of another routine, his famous (infamous?) “Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television.” You can go to www.youtube.com for this and Bruce’s second to the last stand-up performance which Carlin’s bit recalls, as well as other stand-up performances of Bruce and Carlin. These groundbreaking comics, whether you endorse their work or not, were making a social statement with their use of obscenity. When comics today use obscenity—they’re just failing to tell a joke.
Don’t get me wrong. Stewart and Colbert make many social statements, with which I usually agree. Use of the f-word just isn’t one of them. That statement has been made. That ground has been broken, and as far as I’m concerned that f-word should be buried in it. I have such great respect for how Rita Rudner, performing in “Sin City,” where she could no doubt get away with a heck of a lot, has sworn off swearing in her Las Vegas show. That, to my mind, is a social statement for this generation. If Rita Rudner could do it and remain standing, so could the others. I hope they will follow suit.
Most of us, especially Stewart and Colbert and virtually all comics with the capacity to make it in the stand-up circuit or on TV, have enough self-control to choose their words judiciously. In my opinion, when Bruce and Carlin used the f-word they were making a judicious move of sorts. In effect, they were saying that they did not find the censors, the external locus of control, acceptable. Good. That’s half the way there. The second half comes in developing an internal locus of control, i.e. being able to self-censor. Lacing every other sentence with that other f-word is like ending every other sentence with, “You know;” you know? It’s more of a nervous tic or bad habit than anything. The only thing it communicates (now that Bruce and Carlin have broken down the barriers) is that one may not have enough control over one’s language or confidence in one’s performance, and therefore one needs to rely on a crutch.
In the interest of developing a more self-regulating society that exercises a greater central locus of control, I recommend the use of the word “fakakta.” Comics would not have to worry about censors or self-censoring when using “fakakta,” and neither would the rest of us. Fakakta, to my ear, my tongue and even my uvula (I tend to gutteralize the first “k”) has all the power of the other f-word and more, plus its meaning is often much closer to that which the speaker is trying to communicate than is that of that other f-word I so abhor. So, go ahead. You don’t have to be Jewish. Just use it. It’s fakakta not to.
By Devorah Ann Fox, PsyD
You can Google “fakakta phone” to hear “Where’s the fakakta phone?” ringtone, courtesy of Psycho Toddler.
** Nothing connected with this blog or this website should be considered counseling or treatment. **
