imaginarycircus

Words change their meanings over time, and I think this is a case where people are putting their interpretations behind a newer or older definition of a word. Today, we don't have any problem calling someone an idiot or moron, because those words are no longer used for the developmentally disabled. I know some people who think it's okay to say something's "retarded" because that word's no longer used for the developmentally disabled, and others who think that's absolutely terrible. To me, "sanity" has moved on from its mental health definition to refer to beliefs that are reasonable and well-thought-out, but it doesn't surprise me that other people think of it as a medical term and are offended.

As a person living with bipolar disorder (and I do semi-jokingly refer to myself as crazy), I would never even have thought to be offended by this use of "sanity." In no way do I see these rallies as trying to equate what they protest (out-of-control political ideology, etc.) with mental illness. "Insanity" is a very loose term and I don't honestly think it's used specifically to refer to mental illness all that often. And, frankly, I agree with them - when people start frothing at the mouth trying to stir up panic and fear with extremist views, I'm inclined to view that as its own sort of craziness.

Personally, I'm more annoyed when people say things like "the weather has been so bipolar lately" or "she's totally bipolar - nice one minute and then she snaps." In that case, it mostly bothers me because it perpetuates the misconceptions of what bipolar disorder is. I've had to explain to far too many people that it doesn't mean I go from being happy to sad without warning, which seems to be the common-usage understanding of the word.

So in this case, I'm inclined to agree with your friend above who said people are "just looking to have a snit." This may be an unpopular response, but there you have it.

(Is it okay that I reply to your posts? I know we don't really know each other, but I find you very interesting. I guess in some ways I relate to you because I'm also a writer with a mental illness, and it can be very reassuring to hear about other people who share and overcome the same struggles.)

I think I'm so embedded in the mental health/illness model that sane/crazy has become unmoored from that for me. So it strikes me as if someone were to object to the characterization "slouching" on the grounds of scoliosis.

I'm also struggling with considerate word use (I loathe the way "PC" gets used by some people as a term of derision) vs. losing vivid metaphors.

And, dammit - there *is* something disordered about thinking the Tea Party can fix things.

But maybe I'm in denial.

Ah, the insensitivities toward mental illness - they always continue. "Sanity" is a loaded term, for sure.

I relate to a lot of what you say. I have bipolar II and anxiety and I will be on meds for the rest of my life, and I'm totally okay with that because if I were diabetic I would do the same to treat a medical illness, which is what mental illness is. It is never fun to have disconnections from reality; myself, I get something called derealization syndrome, which is extremely frightening, and I get obsessed with insects when I'm not doing well. Fortunately, with medication, I haven't had derealization in over a year, and the bug thing is much much better. I find it interesting that many people with a mental illness -- and please don't take this as personal; it's something that I've noticed A LOT in general -- want to qualify that they (OMG!) do not have the kind of mental illness that has (OMG!) delusions or hallucinations or other shit that pushes an individual with mental illness over the line from affected by mental illness to seriously fucking sick ('scuse mah French!). Even within the community of individuals dealing with mental illness, there is stigma. I do find it hard to say that, yes, unfortunately my particular mental illness can include visual (shadows; buggy-like things) and auditory (ear worms to the extreme; the feeling of someone turning on a radio in one's head) hallucinations. These are far more scary to me than they are dangerous to others, but there is this feeling of embarrassment and shame that comes with admitting to such symptoms. OTOH, I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss one's own experience, and that includes saying "I have X,Y,Z symptoms, but not A,B,C symptoms." Because that is factual. But I do find it interesting that so many people say they "only" have depression, rather than, say, they "only" have schizophrenia, when in truth mental illness, IMO, is a continuum of conditions that each manifests in different ways, and can be equally devastating on an individual level. Of course people are affected more or less, depending. I guess I'm no better, though, because I put in the qualifier that I have bipolar II (depressive) rather than bipolar (manic), because there is that stigma with being known to have mania. It's just something I think about a lot.

Uh, I completely hijacked your post. I apologize! And, again, I hope I'm not coming across as suggesting that you stigmatize mental illness -- I do not believe that at all. Your thoughts just provoked a response on my part that I have been thinking about for a while, and I hope you don't mind that I discussed them here.

I personally don't have opinion to contribute; however, reading the comments has been a very interesting discussion for me. IE: the types of word usage and definition used in an issue where I'm not well-educated. Thanks for posting about this!

Personally, I liked automaticdoor comment here:

Why couldn't this be the Rally to Restore Reason?

Because yeah - specifics of the rally's point aside, I think the words 'sanity/insanity' are nebulous enough/context-heavy terms that it shouldn't be used for naming such broad, over-reaching, publicly inclusive events like a rally, y'know?

Oh hai, guess I do have an opinion, lol.

Hoping no one takes offense: I've found I'm a bit off the general consensus on the use of some of these words.

I think word meanings do change, significantly, over time. I think the general population today uses "insane" to mean a number of things, none of which actually refer to any sort of mental illness, aside from when the word "criminally" is attached. I'd argue (despite having a terrible tendency to use the word myself) that this isn't the case with "retarded" -- I'm certain kids today are still using that very word to refer to the developmentally disabled -- but I'm equally sure that "insane" has migrated, for lack of a better term, into meaning something else now.

"Insane" now refers to things as varied as the manner in which your dog might act when he's excited to see you when you come home from work, to the amount of snow that has fallen somewhere, to the idea of putting Jay Leno on at 10 pm every weeknight, to the near-magical powers of magnets, to any number of political beliefs. All of that, but it does NOT seem to be used to refer to people with serious mental illnesses, who now would, I think, be much more likely to be tagged with the name of their condition or with the generic "mentally ill." I can't offhand come up with (and maybe I shouldn't try) an intentionally offensive term, but I can't really see "insane" being used in that way, either.

I feel even more strongly about "lame," which I seriously don't think anyone under the age of 60 or so has EVER used in reference to someone who limps. In that case, more strongly because the common use of the word no longer refers to a physical condition whatsoever, while "insane" has taken on these meanings that do refer to mental states, but without any of the original clinical meanings. (Similarly, "dummy," which really no longer is ever used to refer to someone who can't speak.)

Does any of that make sense whatsoever? To me, it's as if, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means the word has no meaning whatsoever connected to its original meaning, and 10 means it still completely has that original meaning, I'd have to say the "n word" remains a 10 (so much so that we talk around it rather than just putting the actual words in quotation marks), "retarded" is probably an 8, "insane" is a 4 or maybe 5, and "lame" and "dumb" are to me at least, a 1, because they've become so separated from their original meanings.

I'm really glad that you posted this because I think at the very least it's worth thinking about. I'm generally of the opinion that if someone feels offended, it's important to be sensitive to that, even if one cannot fully grok it. So I'm glad to be put in a new space with respect to the use of "sanity" in this context.

I have other problems with things that went down at the rally, but this seems like an important one too.

I think it if had been the Rally to Restore Mental Health it'd be offensive, since "mentally ill"/"mental health problems" are the standard, professional terms for people dealing with some sort of psychiatric difficulty, whereas "insane" is slangy and used for a whole range of things: "This cake is insanely good!" "Sarah Palin's rhetoric is insane!" etc. and now I think means something that is beyond reason.