February 15, 2005
The Dead
The following was posted on CRTnetnews earlier today. I offer it as an example of a controversy of a sort that breaks out occasionally in academe. And to add: I do not believe that everything is political (a majority of child abusers are women, but I'm not sure that makes child abuse a "feminist" issue.) Sometimes it's better to leave the dead to bury their own dead, as the scriptures say. We remember the dead for a number of purposes; making ourselves feel better about our own moral superiority is not an attractive purpose.
Julie Thompson jthompson08@gw.hamline.edu
The death of a beloved friend is a heartbreaking, life-altering experience and we extend our sympathy to Barbara Biesiecker and those who loved James McDaniel. However, we are writing to clarify points made in Biesecker's recent post regarding a memorial fund being established in memory of James McDaniel, who took his own life while awaiting trial for the attempted murder of his wife, Kimberly McDaniel. Professor Biesecker refers to this euphemistically as an "incident," but we insist on calling domestic violence by name, especially in a field that professes an attention to language; a field -- we would add -- that still harbors much misogyny of its own.
In addition, very, very few people who suffer from mental illness ever attack their intimates. Mental illness is not an excuse for domestic violence, nor is it a cause. Like Professor Biesecker, we believe that it is important to combat the ignorance that surrounds mental illness, and we must also combat the ignorance and disavowal that surrounds domestic violence.
Sincerely,
Julie M. Thompson, Trudy Bayer, Kelly Happe, Allen Larson, Carrie Rentschler, Jennifer Wood, Carole Stabile, and Jonathan Sterne
Julie M. Thompson, Trudy Bayer, Kelly Happe, Allen Larson, Carrie Rentschler, Jennifer Wood, Carole Stabile, and Jonathan Sterne
Posted by jim at February 15, 2005 03:22 PM
Comments
Wow. I'm with you, jim. ick.
Posted by: ddd at February 15, 2005 05:42 PM
The debate continues on CRTNET today:
Date: Wed 2/16/05
From: Ted Remington theodore-remington@uiowa.edu
I appreciate the points made by Thompson et. al. in their response to Barbara
Biesiecker's announcement of the memorial fund in the name of James McDaniel.
However, the implications of the wording they use is unfortunate.
Biesiecker's announcement of the memorial fund in the name of James McDaniel.
However, the implications of the wording they use is unfortunate.
While we all agree that we are a field that "professes an attention to
language," I would respectfully and gently note that we are also a field that
professes an attention to context, purpose, audience, and the rhetorical
situation. In this case, the context of Dr. Biesiecker's note was an obituary
page, a forum in which we traditionally show respect to those who have died,
despite whatever disrespectful things they may have done in their lives.
Moreover, Dr. Biesiecker's comments are likely to be forwarded to colleagues,
friends, and family members of James McDaniel who aren't members of Crtnet, all
in the context of soliciting donations to a worthy cause. Given this, I don't
think it's inappropriate for Dr. Biesecker to use abstract language in
referring to criminal charges facing Jim at the time of his death.
language," I would respectfully and gently note that we are also a field that
professes an attention to context, purpose, audience, and the rhetorical
situation. In this case, the context of Dr. Biesiecker's note was an obituary
page, a forum in which we traditionally show respect to those who have died,
despite whatever disrespectful things they may have done in their lives.
Moreover, Dr. Biesiecker's comments are likely to be forwarded to colleagues,
friends, and family members of James McDaniel who aren't members of Crtnet, all
in the context of soliciting donations to a worthy cause. Given this, I don't
think it's inappropriate for Dr. Biesecker to use abstract language in
referring to criminal charges facing Jim at the time of his death.
In short, the use of abstract language in this highly specific context can only
be read as insensitivity to issues of domestic violence if all issues of
context, purpose, audience, and rhetorical situation are deemed unimportant
generally, or somehow only unimportant if the message involves issues of
domestic violence (and/or mental illness) in some way. I hope and trust that
few readers of this list would agree with this mode of communication criticism.
be read as insensitivity to issues of domestic violence if all issues of
context, purpose, audience, and rhetorical situation are deemed unimportant
generally, or somehow only unimportant if the message involves issues of
domestic violence (and/or mental illness) in some way. I hope and trust that
few readers of this list would agree with this mode of communication criticism.
By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with Thompson's et al. that we should not
suggest most people struggling with mental illness commit acts of violence.
But nothing in Dr. Biesecker's post suggests this. As for the claim that
mental illness is never a cause of domestic violence, I appreciate the
sentiment that I assume lies beneath the words, but disagree with the statement
itself. To suggest that someone who suffers from acute mental illness is to be
held as responsible for their actions as someone who is not similarly afflicted
blames the sufferer for her or his condition. To be sure, there are degrees to
which we as a society are willing to consider mental illness as a mitigating
factor when judging the actions of others (as well there should be), but the
blanket statement that mental illness is not a contributing cause of a
particular behavior seems far too universal to be tenable, even if the
particular behavior in question is something as horrific as domestic abuse!
. I say this not to defend Jim McDaniel, since I do not know the specifics of
his condition, but to defend those sufferers who have been treated shabbily and
shamefully by a justice system that often equates the medical condition of
mental illness with personal moral failing.
suggest most people struggling with mental illness commit acts of violence.
But nothing in Dr. Biesecker's post suggests this. As for the claim that
mental illness is never a cause of domestic violence, I appreciate the
sentiment that I assume lies beneath the words, but disagree with the statement
itself. To suggest that someone who suffers from acute mental illness is to be
held as responsible for their actions as someone who is not similarly afflicted
blames the sufferer for her or his condition. To be sure, there are degrees to
which we as a society are willing to consider mental illness as a mitigating
factor when judging the actions of others (as well there should be), but the
blanket statement that mental illness is not a contributing cause of a
particular behavior seems far too universal to be tenable, even if the
particular behavior in question is something as horrific as domestic abuse!
. I say this not to defend Jim McDaniel, since I do not know the specifics of
his condition, but to defend those sufferers who have been treated shabbily and
shamefully by a justice system that often equates the medical condition of
mental illness with personal moral failing.
Sincerely,
Ted Remington
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Rhetoric
The University of Iowa
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Rhetoric
The University of Iowa
***************************************************************************************
Date: Wed 2/16/05
From: Kristina Drumheller drumhelk@mcmurryadm.mcm.edu
From: Kristina Drumheller drumhelk@mcmurryadm.mcm.edu
Regarding Julie Thompson et al.'s posting to correct information surrounding the
recent death of James McDaniel, I believe the posting was out of order and
insensitive. First, the fact that the memorial fund was set up to bring
attention to bipolar disorder is a great thing and should remain the focus of
the heartfelt words expressed by Barbara Biesiecker. Did everyone really need
the details of the "incident" which I am sure was a word used out of respect
for the family who must live with McDaniel's unfortunate actions? Second, while
I agree mental illness is not an "excuse," bipolar disorder does often lead
those afflicted to actions of aggression, especially in the manic phase. What
is inexcusable is that we have a society that stigmatizes mental illness, so
those who need help often do not get it. While the issue of domestic violence
is also important, Thompson's posting is a red herring to the real issue and
point of Biesiecker's note - mental illness left undiagnosed a!
nd untreated is harmful not only to the one afflicted but also to his/her loved
ones.
recent death of James McDaniel, I believe the posting was out of order and
insensitive. First, the fact that the memorial fund was set up to bring
attention to bipolar disorder is a great thing and should remain the focus of
the heartfelt words expressed by Barbara Biesiecker. Did everyone really need
the details of the "incident" which I am sure was a word used out of respect
for the family who must live with McDaniel's unfortunate actions? Second, while
I agree mental illness is not an "excuse," bipolar disorder does often lead
those afflicted to actions of aggression, especially in the manic phase. What
is inexcusable is that we have a society that stigmatizes mental illness, so
those who need help often do not get it. While the issue of domestic violence
is also important, Thompson's posting is a red herring to the real issue and
point of Biesiecker's note - mental illness left undiagnosed a!
nd untreated is harmful not only to the one afflicted but also to his/her loved
ones.
Kris Drumheller, Ph.D.
McMurry University
McM Station Box 68
Abilene, Texas 79697
325-793-3856
McMurry University
McM Station Box 68
Abilene, Texas 79697
325-793-3856
Posted by: Karen at February 16, 2005 09:28 AM
The whole controversy illustrates the classical rhetorical principles of "to prepon" or "decorum." How does our sense of political and aesthetic judgment enable us to craft a "fitting" response to an event?
Posted by: jim at February 16, 2005 10:37 AM
After some off-blogora prodding from others--including rhhhosa--i realize that i should perhaps elaborate my "ick" response above. First of all, as others have suggested, it would have been entirely inappropriate in the context of Biesecker's note to unpack what was coming through under the term "incident." That word was no doubt trembling on the page even as she wrote it, poised to blow, and i personally admire the way she handled it--the way she handled it *in that situation.*
But second and more specifically, what I found distasteful about the Thompson et al post was that they claimed to know something, to have understood, closing the "case" before we've really even figured out how to pry it open. The shocking brutality of the attack that left mcdaniel's wife in the hospital ought not be whited out, of course; it must be remembered....but remembered as one anguishing piece of a tragedy that we don't yet know how to read. To claim to understand, to have discovered an access key in this situation, seems to me inappropriate. This is the part I'm talking about: "In addition, very, very few people who suffer from mental illness ever attack their intimates. Mental illness is not an excuse for domestic violence, nor is it a cause."
Really? Ever? Are we sure? Does that settle it? I'm a Nietzschean to the extent that I consider my reaction to this "debate" a matter of taste rather than of truth or whatever: I find this claim to (damning) knowledge *distasteful*, especially in these circumstances.
Posted by: ddd at February 16, 2005 12:52 PM
As a former colleague of James McDaniel and someone who watched a community wrestle with very complex and painful issues surrounding mental illness and violence, I want to thank Ted, Kris, and Jim for pointing out what many who were closer to the situation than Thompson et al. were not yet able to say.
Posted by: Lisa Keranen at February 17, 2005 02:16 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment