“You have to compromise”, the adults in the room say. If “compromise”, “being rational” and “realism” are placeholder terms for “adapt to the current system that perpetuates inequalities and silences people,” then some of us would rather remain unreasonable, unrealistic and extremist people who demand the impossible.
by Kurt Borg
Image: Geralt
[dropcap]Y[/dropcap]esterday, a story came to light on how a nursing aide at Mount Carmel was admitted to the same psychiatric hospital for four days after an argument with one of her superiors. The woman was placed under constant observation—including being accompanied while in the bathroom and shower—and while in the hospital, she received a letter informing her that disciplinary action would be taken against her.
The nurse in question admitted her wrong-doing, and apologised to her superior. However, the superior alleged that the nurse had psychiatric problems on the basis of a report from one person who allegedly overheard her uttering suicidal thoughts, and that she does not want to work with her any more. The health authorities claim that the woman was admitted voluntarily but she denied this claim and said that she only signed the admission document once she was told that if she did not do so, then a care order will be issued, which would mean that she will remain at the hospital for ten days instead of four. An independent psychiatrist found that the nurse was in full control of her thoughts when the argument with her superior happened.
All this info was shared by Jeremy Camilleri, the General Workers Union secretary for the public sector, during a press conference held yesterday. Camilleri has been following up this case on behalf of this nursing aide, and after exhausting discussions with the health authorities, Mount Carmel management, the Health ministry, and the mental health commissioner, Camilleri is now appealing to the Health minister Chris Fearne for his intervention.
[beautifulquote align=”full” cite=””]This incident is symptomatic of wider concerns. This story can serve as an analogy for how contestation, critique and resistance are all too often side-lined as “unreasonable”, “extremist”, if not “mad”.[/beautifulquote]
This is indeed a strange and tragic story. We need not enter into the specific details of what the argument between the two Mount Carmel staff was about to deduce that something about this incident is very wrong. There is also something very tragically symbolic and sadly ironic about this story. One could say that this is just a one-off incident. But in reality, this incident is symptomatic of wider concerns. This story can serve as an analogy for how contestation, critique and resistance are all too often side-lined as “unreasonable” and “extremist”, if not “mad”.
Anyone who has worked one day in their life will know the feeling of helplessness that most employees feel. Work sucks life out of you, and often leaves you with a great sense of frustration. Many individuals claim to actually start living once they leave their grey office. Many are those who know what it’s like to not feel valued or listened to; or to even get the chance to speak in the first place. Most work places are governed by and through apathy, lethargy and inertia.
In such situations, work and life uneasily blend together. One is expected not to bring one’s life and one’s life problems into the office. In an institution, you are first and foremost an employee, not a full person. The institution does not really want to see your self, but mainly wants to see you complete the tasks assigned. Indeed, to complete more tasks than you actually can or want.
If you start to reflect further on the rules that govern working spaces, or to voice resistance, or to demand things to be otherwise, trouble will start. “Watch your attitude”; “don’t answer back”; or—the best one—“be reasonable and realistic!” Day in, day out, many people face this bullshit. What’s worse, most people have to put up with this bullshit, fake their smiles, and continue being uncomfortable. Most people have to fit the mould. It’s not worth the hassle to resist. It’s too tiring, burdensome, and marginalising, many think. And one wouldn’t blame them because it’s quite true. Not many bosses appreciate critical minds. And even fewer bosses admit or acknowledge power relations in work places, or politicise their practices.
It’s very easy to brush off “difficult” individuals as uncooperative wackos. And some indeed are so. But many aren’t. Many simply feel trapped in their work place, or feel like they have no alternatives. Or feel like the stresses of life are too big and exhausting. Incidentally (or perhaps not), the nursing aide at the centre of the Mount Carmel drama is a mother (presumably, of dependents) and the sole breadwinner in her family. The latter point is crucial. Being the sole breadwinner of a family entails many pressures—even if unconsciously. “What would happen if I’m suddenly injured or unable to work?,” one would think. Now, imagine this woman, working in a high pressure place of work with so many difficulties and structural problems associated with it (read more about this here), having trouble with her superior (for reasons we do not know), and lashing out, perhaps aggressively, perhaps inappropriately. We don’t know, and it’s not the most important piece of information in this story.
[beautifulquote align=”left” cite=””]The crux of the problem is how the individual with the superior position of power chose to wield her power.[/beautifulquote]
The crux of the problem is how the individual with the superior position of power chose to wield her power. Not in an empowering way, nor in a generous way. But in the utmost shameful way. That is, in a manner intended to strip the individual of credibility, legitimacy and critical voice. Even if the nursing aide did indeed have psychiatric problems (this does not seem to be verified yet), it is unacceptable that—overnight—the individual is transferred from employee to resident of the same ward l, under the care of individuals who just a few hours before were her colleagues. The GWU secretary himself highlighted that, in such circumstances, an alternative place should have been found.
Even the logic of the superior does not hold: even if we accept that the nursing aide had psychiatric problems, thus needing attention and internment, why would she claim that she does not want to work with her again, presumably after she is out of the hospital? Why would the superior—a top agent in the psychiatric field—think that an individual who perhaps wronged her due to a psychiatric problem claim that she does not want to work with her again in the future? Why stigmatise the mental health issues rather than work through them? In this case, this is even more aggravating since the superior works with clients with mental health issues, and should be removing the stigma surrounding mental health issues rather than perpetuating it.
What irked me the most in this story is how such reactions reflect broader concerns related to how dissent is dealt with. Such a gesture by the superior aimed to shame and humiliate the nursing aide; not because being a resident at Mount Carmel is shameful—NOT AT ALL—but because if the superior wished to ameliorate the mental health situation of the nurse, then she would have done the necessary arrangements to ensure that the nurse is taken care of in another institution. The message that the superior wanted to send is that the behaviour of the nursing aide—presumably this was a saga which had been going on for some time—had thus been irrational, illogical, uncalled for, the implication being that the problem was the individual, not the reality she may have been reacting against.
This gesture was another gesture in a series of gestures wielded by people in power to dismiss dissent. Here are a couple of examples: just think of men who brush off sexual harassment accusations (when they’re clearly true) as just play or as exaggerated. Just think of people who dismiss rape victims as liars or as blameworthy. Just think of immigrants facing nauseating state bureaucracy, social inequality, marginalisation, poverty and racism who respond aggressively one fine day, seemingly unprovoked. Think of environmentalists who are dismissed as “unrealistic” or “extremists” when they oppose projects such as last week’s monster. Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has sometimes used this technique to dismiss critics of his economic vision as “unrealistic”.
“You have to compromise”, the adults in the room say. If “compromise”, “being rational” and “realism” are placeholder terms for “adapt to the current system that perpetuates inequalities and silences people,” then some of us would rather remain unreasonable, unrealistic and extremist people who demand the impossible.
Leave a Reply