Just this side of heaven is a place called Rainbow Bridge.
When an animal dies that has been especially close to someone here, that pet goes to Rainbow Bridge. There are meadows and hills for all of our special friends so they can run and play together. There is plenty of food, water and sunshine, and our friends are warm and comfortable.
All the animals who had been ill and old are restored to health and vigor. Those who were hurt or maimed are made whole and strong again, just as we remember them in our dreams of days and times gone by. The animals are happy and content, except for one small thing; they each miss someone very special to them, who had to be left behind.
They all run and play together, but the day comes when one suddenly stops and looks into the distance. His bright eyes are intent. His eager body quivers. Suddenly he begins to run from the group, flying over the green grass, his legs carrying him faster and faster.
You have been spotted, and when you and your special friend finally meet, you cling together in joyous reunion, never to be parted again. The happy kisses rain upon your face; your hands again caress the beloved head, and you look once more into the trusting eyes of your pet, so long gone from your life but never absent from your heart.
Then you cross Rainbow Bridge together...
Author Unknown
For many of you who are animal lovers, this passage will likely be a familiar one. The Rainbow Bridge has become a famous and favorite reference among the huge internet community, most especially, it seems, among cat lovers. It is a beautiful vision of hope and joy and peace for the furry children who have given us their love and companionship for their entire lives.
Some people will look to the Bible and claim that there is no evidence that animals have souls and so the animals don't go to heaven like humans do. And perhaps that is so - perhaps there is no BIBLICAL evidence that animals have souls or can go to heaven. But to each person who says that, I would suggest two things. First, take a kitten or a puppy into your home, raise them, care for them, love them. Make them a part of your family. And second, when that cat or dog precedes you and your family into the life thereafter, look your young children straight in the eye and tell them where their favorite friend has gone.
The answer? The Rainbow Bridge.
I have had the blessing of being able to share the lives of my kitties with a community of cat-lovers and gotten a chance to love their kitties in return. We share the happy and the sad in the lives of our furries, and that will always include those unavoidable moments when we have to say goodbye. One of those goodbyes occurred last night, in a house where the beautiful Lola (kitty) had been the inseparable companion of the little Mr. B (for baby) for the first 2 years of Mr. B's life. In her goodbye post, Mr. B and Lola's mother had this to say:
"I told Sean that I think [Lola] will come to say hello to us when we get to the Rainbow Bridge, but I think she'll let us go on, preferring to lay in the sunshine and chase butterflies for many, many, many years to come (God willing) until the big grown up man that Mr B becomes finally meets her there."
The very image of that quote yanks at my heart. It's the spirit of the Rainbow Bridge. Lola will wait as long as she needs to wait, until Mr. B is ready to come home. He probably won't remember her, not in life. But when they meet at the Rainbow Bridge, he'll know her, as if they lived decades together, rather than just two years. And then they will cross the rainbow bridge together...
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Power of "Just"
I've been thinking a lot about the word just recently. It is such a simple word, and yet one with so many definitions. You can't get through a day without using it, and most of the time you may not realize that it's a part of your lingo. But just can be a very dangerous word as well. That's because it is a word that minimizes.
I should note that just can be defined in two broad categories: adjectives and adverbs. An adjective is what you use when you refer to something being right, lawful and based on justice. That is not the form of the word that I am referring to here. Rather, I'm considering the word just when it's used as an adverb. Let's take a look at the definition from www.dictionary.com:
Just
–adverb
9. within a brief preceding time; but a moment before: The sun just came out.
10. exactly or precisely: This is just what I mean.
11. by a narrow margin; barely: The arrow just missed the mark.
12. only or merely: He was just a clerk until he became ambitious.
13. actually; really; positively: The weather is just glorious.
Synonyms include words like: but, merely, simply and only. They are all minimizing the power of the verb that is being described. So? you ask. What's the big problem? The problem is when what you are truly minimizing is the efforts of another human being. Let me explain.
When I was a kid, I struggled with chores that should have been easy to do. They would have been easy to do if I had actually done them. But I struggled with the initiative to do them. That's part of what defines an ADHD mind - you lack the dopamine to start menial tasks that are un-exciting to you. We didn't know that I had ADHD at the time, so my dad's favorite phrase was "just do it." To this day, I hate that phrase. My father never meant to insult me with those words. He never called me lazy or irresponsible. He thought he was encouraging me to accomplish a task that would be easy if I could just get started on it. But he didn't comprehend that getting started on it was exactly the task that I couldn't do.
For years I have expressed my opinion about how dangerous the phrase "just do it" really is. It isn't the encouragement that you think it is. By saying it, you are minimizing the challenges that the person is facing - challenges that you likely can't even comprehend. What I didn't realize until recently is how much broader this argument can go.
Just last month, I was in my Normal Human Growth and Development class and I mentioned my aversion to those three words: "Just do it." I said it not expecting others to relate, since I knew that I was the only person diagnosed with ADHD in the class. I was surprised, however, when one of my classmates spoke up and told her story:
This classmate is a mother of four, and her two youngest children were adopted from an abusive mother. The youngest was by far the worst off and when she took this newly adopted girl to the pediatrician for the first time, the pediatrician's multitude pieces of advice included these words: "Remove the word "just" from your vocabulary. Nothing will ever be as easy as 'just' for this child." My classmate concluded her story by saying that the pediatrician was correct. Years later, this youngest child was starting school and doing far better than she would have been doing if his loving mother hadn't adopted her, but her life would always be more difficult than a child who hadn't been abused for the first two years of their life. Developmentally, socially, emotionally, mentally, this child would never be able to "just" anything.
My reaction to this story was two-fold. First, I was in awe at the wisdom of this pediatrician. While I had heard of other adults with ADHD expressing similar dislike of my least favorite phrase, I had never heard of a doctor explaining the phenomenon to a worried mother.
My second reaction was to re-evaluate my least favorite phrase, and I realized that, just as the pediatrician had explained to my classmate, it was not the phrase that offended me as much as that one word: just.
As an aspiring counselor, I have continued to consider the ramifications of this one word. "Just." And I'm coming to realize how careful we must be whenever we use it. It is true that the word just can be used in a way that offers no negative connotation, ("If you just want to toss the spreadsheet to me via e-mail, I can print the nametags off of that.") But whenever we craft our words to describe the amount of effort that we believe is required in a given action, then we threaten to minimize that effort on the part of someone else. And how can we ever comprehend the challenges that another person faces?
I should note that just can be defined in two broad categories: adjectives and adverbs. An adjective is what you use when you refer to something being right, lawful and based on justice. That is not the form of the word that I am referring to here. Rather, I'm considering the word just when it's used as an adverb. Let's take a look at the definition from www.dictionary.com:
Just
–adverb
9. within a brief preceding time; but a moment before: The sun just came out.
10. exactly or precisely: This is just what I mean.
11. by a narrow margin; barely: The arrow just missed the mark.
12. only or merely: He was just a clerk until he became ambitious.
13. actually; really; positively: The weather is just glorious.
Synonyms include words like: but, merely, simply and only. They are all minimizing the power of the verb that is being described. So? you ask. What's the big problem? The problem is when what you are truly minimizing is the efforts of another human being. Let me explain.
When I was a kid, I struggled with chores that should have been easy to do. They would have been easy to do if I had actually done them. But I struggled with the initiative to do them. That's part of what defines an ADHD mind - you lack the dopamine to start menial tasks that are un-exciting to you. We didn't know that I had ADHD at the time, so my dad's favorite phrase was "just do it." To this day, I hate that phrase. My father never meant to insult me with those words. He never called me lazy or irresponsible. He thought he was encouraging me to accomplish a task that would be easy if I could just get started on it. But he didn't comprehend that getting started on it was exactly the task that I couldn't do.
For years I have expressed my opinion about how dangerous the phrase "just do it" really is. It isn't the encouragement that you think it is. By saying it, you are minimizing the challenges that the person is facing - challenges that you likely can't even comprehend. What I didn't realize until recently is how much broader this argument can go.
Just last month, I was in my Normal Human Growth and Development class and I mentioned my aversion to those three words: "Just do it." I said it not expecting others to relate, since I knew that I was the only person diagnosed with ADHD in the class. I was surprised, however, when one of my classmates spoke up and told her story:
This classmate is a mother of four, and her two youngest children were adopted from an abusive mother. The youngest was by far the worst off and when she took this newly adopted girl to the pediatrician for the first time, the pediatrician's multitude pieces of advice included these words: "Remove the word "just" from your vocabulary. Nothing will ever be as easy as 'just' for this child." My classmate concluded her story by saying that the pediatrician was correct. Years later, this youngest child was starting school and doing far better than she would have been doing if his loving mother hadn't adopted her, but her life would always be more difficult than a child who hadn't been abused for the first two years of their life. Developmentally, socially, emotionally, mentally, this child would never be able to "just" anything.
My reaction to this story was two-fold. First, I was in awe at the wisdom of this pediatrician. While I had heard of other adults with ADHD expressing similar dislike of my least favorite phrase, I had never heard of a doctor explaining the phenomenon to a worried mother.
My second reaction was to re-evaluate my least favorite phrase, and I realized that, just as the pediatrician had explained to my classmate, it was not the phrase that offended me as much as that one word: just.
As an aspiring counselor, I have continued to consider the ramifications of this one word. "Just." And I'm coming to realize how careful we must be whenever we use it. It is true that the word just can be used in a way that offers no negative connotation, ("If you just want to toss the spreadsheet to me via e-mail, I can print the nametags off of that.") But whenever we craft our words to describe the amount of effort that we believe is required in a given action, then we threaten to minimize that effort on the part of someone else. And how can we ever comprehend the challenges that another person faces?
Monday, March 2, 2009
Cross Culture Conflicts: Science, Politics and ADHD
NOTE: This brainsplat of mine is aimed at a couple different audiences. But I've written it all together here. I'll post pieces of it elsewhere in approapriate settings
In studying for my cross-cultural counseling midterm, I've been reading over Duane Elmer's Cross-Cultural Conflict. There are a couple of (random) connections that I've made and I'll admit that I'm not comfortable with most of them. But, nevertheless, they are lessons to be learned, I think.
The Cross-Cultural Conflicts Between Religion and Science:
One comment I found intriguing (and that holds no little amount of wisdom) is Elmer's point that westerners (that is, people living in the "western world" like the US and Europe), are so often driven to understand In studying for my cross-cultural counseling midterm, I've been reading over Duane Elmer's Cross-Cultural Conflict. There are a couple of connections that I've made and I'll admit that I'm not comfortable with most of them. But, nevertheless, they are lessons to be learned, I think.
One comment I found intriguing (and that holds no little amount of wisdom) is Elmer's point that westerners (that is, people living in the "western world" like the US and Europe), are more often driven to have black and white answers than other cultures.
"The Western mind finds particular delight in providing answers to questions. An unanswered question is scandalous, so the mind quickly supplies its own answer from its own form of logic, its own cultural assumptions and its own value system." (Elmer, 1984)
In this quote, I couldn't help remembering the recent "debate" that I have had with my close Christian friends about creation vs. evolution. In that debate, and in so many others that I have heard, it seems to me that the largest issue is that these black and white Christians aren't willing to accept that science isn't supposed to know everything. "It's just a theory." "You can't prove anything." Trying to correct their misassumptions about how science works is like… worse than pulling teeth. And it doesn't help that in the scientific community, it is a big no-no to state anything with absolute certainty. That is a view that scientists take seriously, they live the idea that they are looking for answers - not necessarily finding them. Suddenly, I think I understand why this debate has gone on for so long - it's not a case of a different language (as I used to think). It's a case of a different culture - a different world view!
Winning and Losing in a Cross-Cultural Setting
A little bit later, Elmer talks about how different types of people handle conflict in the western world. His description of the win-lose type really dug at me, for a couple of reasons.
"Win-lose people assume that everything should be seen as right or wrong. They have a very small "gray" area and tend not to be very flexible or even willing to negotiate. Everything must be judged as right or wrong, even obvious differences; thus it follows that everything that is "like me" will be judged as right and everything "unlike me" will be judged as wrong. Such people have little tolerance for ambiguity. Right and wrong must be determined as quickly as possible so one knows how to treat the matter or the person." (Elmer 1984)
I made two connections with this quote, but they really both begin with the elections. During the recently 2008 presidential elections, race was a big factor. Perhaps not for everyone. I know it was not a deciding factor for me. I know it was not a deciding factor for white friends who voted for either side. As for blacks, I honestly don’t know. I don’t have enough black friends to ask. But I do remember the news story about black women who were being ostracized for supporting McCain. Did it go the other way? Probably. Are there socio-economic reasons for the way most of the black population voted? I have no doubt about it. My point is that while we can't stereotype how blacks and whites vote or how the elections came out (nor do I care to), there is no doubt that the view we got from the media most certainly did that.
Now, with that in mind, think about how many African Americans view Obama's presidency as a "victory" specifically for them. And remember how competitive our culture is. The celebrations that the media showed after the elections put some of the largest Superbowl parties to shame! The Superbowl is a competitive sport. It's win-lose. The presidential elections should not be, and yet I must confess that there are times after the elections when I would hear an African American say something about it being "their" victory, it would rub me the wrong way.
The only reason I'm bringing this up is that this topic sort of came up in class a couple months back. One of the other few whites in my class commented that he had seen an African American woman wearing a shirt with Obama on the front and the words "MLK Jr's dream has come true," and my classmate admitted that he wasn't offended, but he was frustrated, because to him, this woman didn't understand what the dream was about. The 2/3rds of our class made up of African American women, however, immediately informed him that she most certainly DID understand what MLK's dream meant. And we learned the lesson about how misunderstandings persisted among cultures and moved on with the class lesson. But that conversation has bothered me because I am very much on my white classmate's side.
It has taken me some time to figure out why, and I think this quote from Elmer finally cinched it for me. The shirt - the idea of victory - means something different to blacks than it does to whites. In our western white culture, if you win it means that your opponent has lost. And if you show it off excessively, then you are rubbing it in. Did any of you play soccer as children? Do you remember the chant you yelled at the beginning and ending of each game? "2-4-6-8, who do we appreciate?" Then you'd yell out the name of the other team. Then at the end of the game, you'd run down the line, slapping everyone's hands and telling them "good game". Our culture might be a competitive, individualistic one, but we are still taught how important it is to honor and respect our opponent. We are taught to be happy for other people's successes, true, but there is also such thing as a "poor winner". The catch is that I think the concept of what a "poor winner" is is very different in the western cultures from the African American cultures. I'm not saying that either side is wrong. Just that it has helped me to understand why they are different, and I think it is important for us all to understand how those differences can lead to anger and hurt and hard feelings.
Why I Hate Politics
Now, for my second connection to the elections, or more specifically, politics. I won't go into it in dept, because I've already ranted a little bit. But there are people who are so politically entrenched that they'll take every available opportunity to insult the other side and to lecture to people who have never once argued with them - as if just to hear themselves talk. It's… getting tiring, to be honest. But they are my friends and I love them. Even if I am taking notes on how NOT to raise my children…
ADHD: Individualistic or Collectivistic?
Lastly, I have one more connection to throw out. And this one is more of a ponderance (new word, hee!), a question.
Among the types of conflict resolves, Elmer also discusses the one who "gives in" and the one who "compromises" (two different types). Elmer describes giving in as someone who might admit that he or she can see the other person's point of view, and he describes the compromiser as someone who believes that every conversation should be settled by compromise - in which no one goes home happier than the others (this is not, according to Elmer, the same as a win-win conclusion).
Now, my thoughts have turned to ADHD. In 4 Weeks to an Organized Life with ADHD (a great book, by the way!), the authors talk about how the ADHD mind is uniquely capable of seeing the world from all directions and in the same way, seeing situations from all points of view. This makes them gifted counselors and very empathic, but makes it very hard for them to take a side in many arguments. Wow. Does that describe anyone else? Here I am getting a degree in Christian Counseling, but I can't even take a stand on most political controversies.
Which leads me to a very odd question - Does ADHD have more weight here in the individualistic part of the world than it would in other collectivistic cultures? Let me back up by describing a question that Elmer poses at the beginning of an earlier chapter: Which is the worse sin - lying or losing your temper?
Well? I'm curious what your reactions are. Which is worse?
I thought about it, and the counselor in me knew that sometimes you can't be entirely honest. But you DO have to be respectful of other people's feelings, so losing your temper would be worse. What was your answer? Now, imagine my surprise when Elmer explained that most people in the western world would saying lying is worse because our individualistic culture puts an emphasis on truth. But the other 2/3rds of the world puts an emphasis on relationships, so losing your temper is worse, because it could cause a schism between the relationship.
I think you can all imagine where I am going with this. Does ADHD actually fit better into a relationship-focused culture? On the one hand, I know I am not the only one who has trouble with relationships, but how much of that is because of the individualistic demands that our culture places on those relationships? How many of our troubles with relationships are because of physical actions that we forget to take or things we lose versus how many are because we spoke out of turn or performed a relational taboo? I honestly don't know. It's something I'm going to have to think about.
In studying for my cross-cultural counseling midterm, I've been reading over Duane Elmer's Cross-Cultural Conflict. There are a couple of (random) connections that I've made and I'll admit that I'm not comfortable with most of them. But, nevertheless, they are lessons to be learned, I think.
The Cross-Cultural Conflicts Between Religion and Science:
One comment I found intriguing (and that holds no little amount of wisdom) is Elmer's point that westerners (that is, people living in the "western world" like the US and Europe), are so often driven to understand In studying for my cross-cultural counseling midterm, I've been reading over Duane Elmer's Cross-Cultural Conflict. There are a couple of connections that I've made and I'll admit that I'm not comfortable with most of them. But, nevertheless, they are lessons to be learned, I think.
One comment I found intriguing (and that holds no little amount of wisdom) is Elmer's point that westerners (that is, people living in the "western world" like the US and Europe), are more often driven to have black and white answers than other cultures.
"The Western mind finds particular delight in providing answers to questions. An unanswered question is scandalous, so the mind quickly supplies its own answer from its own form of logic, its own cultural assumptions and its own value system." (Elmer, 1984)
In this quote, I couldn't help remembering the recent "debate" that I have had with my close Christian friends about creation vs. evolution. In that debate, and in so many others that I have heard, it seems to me that the largest issue is that these black and white Christians aren't willing to accept that science isn't supposed to know everything. "It's just a theory." "You can't prove anything." Trying to correct their misassumptions about how science works is like… worse than pulling teeth. And it doesn't help that in the scientific community, it is a big no-no to state anything with absolute certainty. That is a view that scientists take seriously, they live the idea that they are looking for answers - not necessarily finding them. Suddenly, I think I understand why this debate has gone on for so long - it's not a case of a different language (as I used to think). It's a case of a different culture - a different world view!
Winning and Losing in a Cross-Cultural Setting
A little bit later, Elmer talks about how different types of people handle conflict in the western world. His description of the win-lose type really dug at me, for a couple of reasons.
"Win-lose people assume that everything should be seen as right or wrong. They have a very small "gray" area and tend not to be very flexible or even willing to negotiate. Everything must be judged as right or wrong, even obvious differences; thus it follows that everything that is "like me" will be judged as right and everything "unlike me" will be judged as wrong. Such people have little tolerance for ambiguity. Right and wrong must be determined as quickly as possible so one knows how to treat the matter or the person." (Elmer 1984)
I made two connections with this quote, but they really both begin with the elections. During the recently 2008 presidential elections, race was a big factor. Perhaps not for everyone. I know it was not a deciding factor for me. I know it was not a deciding factor for white friends who voted for either side. As for blacks, I honestly don’t know. I don’t have enough black friends to ask. But I do remember the news story about black women who were being ostracized for supporting McCain. Did it go the other way? Probably. Are there socio-economic reasons for the way most of the black population voted? I have no doubt about it. My point is that while we can't stereotype how blacks and whites vote or how the elections came out (nor do I care to), there is no doubt that the view we got from the media most certainly did that.
Now, with that in mind, think about how many African Americans view Obama's presidency as a "victory" specifically for them. And remember how competitive our culture is. The celebrations that the media showed after the elections put some of the largest Superbowl parties to shame! The Superbowl is a competitive sport. It's win-lose. The presidential elections should not be, and yet I must confess that there are times after the elections when I would hear an African American say something about it being "their" victory, it would rub me the wrong way.
The only reason I'm bringing this up is that this topic sort of came up in class a couple months back. One of the other few whites in my class commented that he had seen an African American woman wearing a shirt with Obama on the front and the words "MLK Jr's dream has come true," and my classmate admitted that he wasn't offended, but he was frustrated, because to him, this woman didn't understand what the dream was about. The 2/3rds of our class made up of African American women, however, immediately informed him that she most certainly DID understand what MLK's dream meant. And we learned the lesson about how misunderstandings persisted among cultures and moved on with the class lesson. But that conversation has bothered me because I am very much on my white classmate's side.
It has taken me some time to figure out why, and I think this quote from Elmer finally cinched it for me. The shirt - the idea of victory - means something different to blacks than it does to whites. In our western white culture, if you win it means that your opponent has lost. And if you show it off excessively, then you are rubbing it in. Did any of you play soccer as children? Do you remember the chant you yelled at the beginning and ending of each game? "2-4-6-8, who do we appreciate?" Then you'd yell out the name of the other team. Then at the end of the game, you'd run down the line, slapping everyone's hands and telling them "good game". Our culture might be a competitive, individualistic one, but we are still taught how important it is to honor and respect our opponent. We are taught to be happy for other people's successes, true, but there is also such thing as a "poor winner". The catch is that I think the concept of what a "poor winner" is is very different in the western cultures from the African American cultures. I'm not saying that either side is wrong. Just that it has helped me to understand why they are different, and I think it is important for us all to understand how those differences can lead to anger and hurt and hard feelings.
Why I Hate Politics
Now, for my second connection to the elections, or more specifically, politics. I won't go into it in dept, because I've already ranted a little bit. But there are people who are so politically entrenched that they'll take every available opportunity to insult the other side and to lecture to people who have never once argued with them - as if just to hear themselves talk. It's… getting tiring, to be honest. But they are my friends and I love them. Even if I am taking notes on how NOT to raise my children…
ADHD: Individualistic or Collectivistic?
Lastly, I have one more connection to throw out. And this one is more of a ponderance (new word, hee!), a question.
Among the types of conflict resolves, Elmer also discusses the one who "gives in" and the one who "compromises" (two different types). Elmer describes giving in as someone who might admit that he or she can see the other person's point of view, and he describes the compromiser as someone who believes that every conversation should be settled by compromise - in which no one goes home happier than the others (this is not, according to Elmer, the same as a win-win conclusion).
Now, my thoughts have turned to ADHD. In 4 Weeks to an Organized Life with ADHD (a great book, by the way!), the authors talk about how the ADHD mind is uniquely capable of seeing the world from all directions and in the same way, seeing situations from all points of view. This makes them gifted counselors and very empathic, but makes it very hard for them to take a side in many arguments. Wow. Does that describe anyone else? Here I am getting a degree in Christian Counseling, but I can't even take a stand on most political controversies.
Which leads me to a very odd question - Does ADHD have more weight here in the individualistic part of the world than it would in other collectivistic cultures? Let me back up by describing a question that Elmer poses at the beginning of an earlier chapter: Which is the worse sin - lying or losing your temper?
Well? I'm curious what your reactions are. Which is worse?
I thought about it, and the counselor in me knew that sometimes you can't be entirely honest. But you DO have to be respectful of other people's feelings, so losing your temper would be worse. What was your answer? Now, imagine my surprise when Elmer explained that most people in the western world would saying lying is worse because our individualistic culture puts an emphasis on truth. But the other 2/3rds of the world puts an emphasis on relationships, so losing your temper is worse, because it could cause a schism between the relationship.
I think you can all imagine where I am going with this. Does ADHD actually fit better into a relationship-focused culture? On the one hand, I know I am not the only one who has trouble with relationships, but how much of that is because of the individualistic demands that our culture places on those relationships? How many of our troubles with relationships are because of physical actions that we forget to take or things we lose versus how many are because we spoke out of turn or performed a relational taboo? I honestly don't know. It's something I'm going to have to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
