"The Curious Savage" and the Message It Made

I love theatre, because of its proximity to real life and it being in the form of "real life". The playwrights all know this method of relaying a message about "life" is effective. Last night, my husband and I attended a local production of the play, "The Curious Savage". It's message was no less poignant.

The notes on the play suggested that the main character, Mrs. Savage was an illustration of selfishness, but I thought that some of the other members of the play illustrated selfishness more starkly.

The play begins with Mrs. Savage being brought to a 'home" by her three step-children. She portrays her resentment of their control and their greed for thier inheritance, through a mockery of thier values. And is left by them to face "herself" in the many characters that inhabit the "home".

These characters; a grieved childless mother, an idealistic, sensitive "dancer", a stubborn defiant "hater", an accomplished neurotic pianist, and a "blind" unaccomplished violinist "mirror" Mrs. Savage's psychological "reflections" of "loss".

Mrs. Savage's hope for a family had ended quickly after marrying her step-children's dad. She was never accepted for "who she was", but for what she could give monetarily. These step-children were"well-connected" and had positions of promenience. It was obvious that their actions were only "protected" by their fear of loosing "status", but their greed over-rode their sensibilities in the end, when Mrs. Savage told each one where she had hidden thier inheritance. She did not tell them the truth, nor did she tell them the same thing. She was protecting the inheritance to provide a 'name" for her dead husband.

Justice finally rules at the end. Each character is "redeemed" from their situational/psychological "doom", the step-children have been exposed for who they are and what they really want, and Mrs. Savage ultimately gets her inheritance, and her freedom.

I found this play to really speak of "reality". People are prone to hide their fears behind religious walls of identification. These fears are "real experiences' that have impacted lives. And religion or tradition just covers over their denial of "real life".

On the other hand, character is truly revealed when desire runs over another human being, such as the step-children did in Mrs. Savage's case.

I didn't agree with the director's analysis of the play, as Mrs. Savage was the only courageous one in the play. She was resolute to defend her honor, face her problems, and protect her husband's memory.

I highly recommend this play.

Science Does or Does Not Advance Soceity?

Last post I wrote about a certain type of mental illness, Borderline Personality Disorder. Mental illness is a label given to the individual by psychological science. Psychological science has "defined" what is normal or abnormal behavior and developed a system that defines what is proper behavior in society. Deviant behavior is labeled as socially disturbing and undermining.

Interestinly enough, some who have been labeled with Manic Depressive Disorder are known to be the most creative and productive individuals throughout history. A prominent psychologist from a major research institute revealed her own "diagnosis" and then revealed how many "creative spirits" would have been "eliminated" by the "system" if medical science had medicated them. These were well know writers such as, Emerson, Dickinsom and painters, such as van Gogh, Rembrandt, and artists such as Beethovan. Creators of many of our "great humanitites". What would the world be like without their contributions?

But, what about moral reformer and revolutionaries, which circumvented the "norm" for something of higher value? These reformers were not seen as society's supporters, as these were ones who saw a more universalized way of understanding the world, tradition, society, and culture. These were usually killed by those they sought to reform or change. These would have been labelled by sociologists as deviants.

The previous blog entry got me thinking about the film I saw about this subject and it made me wonder of what us is medicating those whose "disease" "helps" their creative bent. Most of the geniuses of the past have been deviant in one way or another.

I hope somehow to resolve in my thinking how social norms and values, which are important, at the same time, undermine some of the ones amongst us that would otherwise contribute greatly. How can we know?

Borderlines or Border Lines?

Border lines define boundaries. And boundaries define "self", others, social groups, and nations. Boundaries are maintained by the "laws" or "rules" . These rules or laws define what is "approved" or "disapproved". These laws and rules maintain the identity and values of a certain "culture".

In American culture, where the individual is "free", the group identifiers are as many as there are types of people. This leaves room for the individual to find a place where personal values are upheld and the individual can give back in the place where the culture is condoning of those personal values.

Border lines are therefore, important as they define identity and formulate what is of ultimate value. But, borderlines are a different matter. Borderlines are defined by their personality disorder. Borderlines fear abandonment, reject before they are rejected, use self destructive and mutilating behavior to affirm their self hatred and low self-esteem. They flucuate their ideation and disgust of others, which hinders intimacy, and have tendencies toward implusivity. These people feel "bad" and empty. They lack a definitive identity, as they have lacked the nurturance that develops identity, so trust is of uptmost importance for these.

So, how do social structures that define themselves by their rules and laws "help" define the borderline, when the borderline themselves, feel as if they don't fit, or fear abandonment and rejection without any reasonable reason?

It is imperative that those in the public spheres of influence are informed about the generalities of mental illness, so that they do not exasparate the problem within these individuals. Individuals with certain mental illnesses need medication, counselling, and "help", not condemnation and criticism.

I find that the Church sometimes does nothing to help these individuals, as fundmentalists do not adhere to psychological science. Fundamentalists deny that any reality is real, except the spiritual. These live in denial and hinder others from embracing reality and taking responsibility for their life.

It is imperative in this day and age, that we take advantage of what modern science has given us. We should not live in the Dark Ages when we had no options available to us. And we should never ostericize, criticize, or condemn what we don't understand.