Saturday, November 6, 2010

The Hegemony of the Practical





What a silly thing Love is. It is not half as useful as Logic, for it does not prove anything, and it is always   telling one of things that are not going to happen, and making one believe things that are not true. In fact it is quite unpractical, and in this age to be practical is everything. . .


~The disenchanted student in Oscar Wilde’s The Nightingale and The Rose

Lately I am crushed by the power of Practical.  The Practical has a place certainly—we all need to consider the locations at which our internal and external reality meets and parts—but I am astounded at how our thinking short-circuits when we hear that word. Very often when someone says “but I have to do what’s practical,” they need give no further explanation than that. If we cannot sell a piece of art then our future as an artist is impractical, if we cannot make money farming organic then we have failed to be practical, if we spend all day making idli or sourdough batter from scratch when it can be purchased at the store for a fraction of the time then we are not practical.  We need give no further evidence of the need to jettison these pursuits in favor of Practical alternatives then simply using this word of great power.

The unquestioned superiority of being Practical gives it a hegemony over other possibilities, a hegemony that makes it easier for us to disbelieve in things we once believed when it is discredited it on the basis of practicality. The hegemony of the Practical is something I link to fast paced consumer culture and rapid results capitalism.  It means the valuation of all things material, measurable, saleable and concretizable over choices and things that do not have this quality. It is most evident in a snapshot, short-term analysis, which makes a future prognosis based on the immediately and obviously evident material or literal value of something.  In psychology it is seen in a result oriented (versus depth oriented) psychotherapy where action is encouraged over reflection. In those we know and even in ourselves, we can see the dominance of the practical in the way we choose or dismiss our internal emotional realities.  When I have worked at mental hospitals, I have noticed that psychiatrists and counselors often decide who is healthy and who is unhealthy based on their own sense of what is practical to think or feel.

The hegemony of the Practical shapes us into greater material efficiency, but it robs us of our imagination by over-valuing the concrete. It is the reason that we cannot understand the metaphorically rich language of the psychotic or the poetry of the sensate world. It is the word people sometimes use when they drop out of therapy for financial reasons or when they explain why they waited four years before they started talking about a great grief or loss. The unquestioned Practical is the great dismissor: it is often what facilitates authentic feelings to be discredited or passed over.  It is the voice that tells us to buck up, get going, and stop reflecting. It wields the sword that threatens us with disappointment and breakdown if we believe too deeply in lasting romance, magic or stories.

10 comments:

  1. Beautiful post, Amrits, and I am glad that in some way my choice of a poem inspired you to write it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. wouldn't that be the same reason most therapists charge by the hour instead of an alternative method?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Faustus can you clarify? I'm not sure what you mean by "the same reason". Do elaborate, I am curious to know more about your thought.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "the same reason" would be the title of your very eloquently written post doc...i mean it's probably impractical to have a results based mode of payment in therapy isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Finally made it here, and what fortuitous timing I have! Of course there's tons to think about in each one of your posts (I must go through them, as your Tata would say) but this one seems especially tailored to my life. It should come as no surprise to you that my mother greatly values the Practical and prides herself on being Practical (though in that apologetic, self-deprecating way in which Indian mothers pride themselves on things). And so maybe I've defined myself in opposition to that. But it takes so much time and effort to resist the pressure of the Practical, in today's world. Thanks, by the way, on speaking up to second my defense of "attachment parenting" (and all its attendant impracticalities) on FB.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Faustus: results oriented payment is the direction in which US psychotherapy has been moving for a while and I do link it to the hegemony of the Practical. You are right that result orientated fees are not charged on a results per session basis, but across the board, if insurance is involved and sometimes when it is not, the number of sessions for psychotherapy are limited to the number of sessions in which change is expected to take place. Limiting sessions to the number required for a certain result links specific results to specific dollar amounts—in effect a results based fee system. The effect of the results based fee system is that it forces the course of psychotherapy: everyone who receives psychotherapy must have a diagnosis from a pre-existing list (your problem must be framed in a measurable form), every diagnosis has a clearly defined cure (the solution must also likewise be concrete) and every ‘cure’ has been researched as taking a defined length of time (and its usually not much time). This ties in with some of my issue with the Practical as overly concrete and fast paced. The fee-for-results system is a joint product of insurance companies keen to streamline healthcare costs in tandem with ‘empirical’ psychotherapy research keen to remove the ambiguities of psychotherapy by modeling psychotherapy research after more concrete pharmaceutical research.

    Per session payment with no limit on the number of sessions or monthly payments regardless even of patient attendance (an even older antiquated system) was thought to afford protection for depth oriented psychotherapy, whereas results oriented payment (the payment model described above with pre-existing measurable goals and number of sessions) runs the risk of being more subject to the dominance of the Practical. However because emphasis on the Practical is such a strong trend, the truth is that nothing guarantees protection from its pressing dictates. An open-ness to depth in defiance of the Practical while simultaneously honoring the needs of the client who lives in the Practical world is, as Preets puts it in her comment, a matter of great time and effort.

    ReplyDelete
  7. doc!..there's more vocabulary there than i could ever afford.Please know that i have wikipedia and wikitictionary open so that i can talk to you and please, should this message warrant a reply ..i beg you to adapt Mr. Vu's approach, who, when asked why indeed was he filing for divorce ..saved everyone involved countless time and money by summing it up as "i no cum, she no cum, baby come..how come!"....thank you very much.

    i'm not even gonna pretend that i understood (under the given norms of comprehension atleast) what you wrote above but it just seems like another practical analysis to what i was suggesting. more like a justification and/or defense than a solution...i apologize if that is not what it really is.

    when i said a results based approach..i didn't mean a results per session based approach......where everything needs to be quantified and practically diagnosed into a pre recognized condition.....the ambiguities of psychotherapy are the reasons i think it really works...or should work..but with the current mode of payment by the hour...here in India at least...i find it very hard to differentiate between psychotherapists and....... lawyers

    I've paid both by the hour and the similarities are disappointing. no self respecting lawyer would ever win you a case..unless he sees another one in the pipeline and even then he'd have to go and have a lie down for closing an income stream.


    how about a system..could even be a hybrid of the two you've stated above...where there can be a base fee....something charged per session or week/month/whatever..that satisfies the therapist without burning a hole in the pocket of the one seeking help(practical)...and then maybe on top of that..after a matter of great time and effort ..charge a premium fee based on the results of the therapy which if the person seeking therapy is like me would happily pay twofold in appreciation of the help or if they're like my granny..would completely fail to recognize the therapist or admit to ever even having considered seeing one..in which case the therapist already has received the base fee and would know better the next time granny walks in for a talk.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ah Faustus I believe together we have digressed far far from the topic of this blog post. Happy to talk more about your ideas for innovative therapy fee schedules offline from the blog out of consideration to other readers.

    Vu translation:
    Most other people no interest in see,
    a public discussion about psychotherapy fee,
    if desiring more feedback directly,
    why not sir you email me?

    dr.amrita.blog@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  9. interesting post/conversation...not very result-oriented, is it ?-) why do we bother to post/comment...how can one quantify its value in making the world a better place ;-) or can anyone predict its value to themselves/others before undertaking the effort....fun part of life is in experiencing the unknown, it is not !?

    inspires me to rant, so let me continue...feel free to stop reading, if you fall asleep ;-)

    if the world was result oriented - there would have been no progress/evolution - basically, once the first formula was discovered/preached and that dude died/disappeared/went-up-the-himalayas/attained-moksha - everybody would follow it ad infinitum...impractical to pursue some other formula !

    some of us may have pondered...whats' the point of living following some formula...be it that of our parents, friends, gurus, heros/heroines, religions...

    its because some of us were impractical and pursued whatever we felt like...we have the world as it is today (food, clothing, shelter, language, mobile, internet...)...

    having said that, those of us who are impractical, perhaps following our passions, were/are able to be so because of the foundation provided by the practical practitioners ;-)

    imagine for a moment the people in-charge of providing electricity, transportation, water, food, etc. etc. started to become dreamers and started to question life like, we seem to be doing...would we be able to have the luxury of having this discussion ?

    its easy to discuss/judge/be-critical of other peoples lives...tag them, analyze their actions/reactions/behaviors...come up with some "general theory"...whats' the point of such pursuits...are we trying to score intellectual brownie points ? does it make us feel better ? or better yet, does it make other peoples' lives better ?

    we do have but one life to live our dreams, so... respect practicality, pursue passionality

    - ka
    ps. I just made that last word up, so dont try to make too much sense of it ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. thank you for your patience and time doc :) much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete