Are radio stations the new help-lines?

They call in droves. Choking the telephone lines they wait to pour out their stories, sharing joys, disappointments, conflicts. They want advice. They want to dispense advice. They are enthusiastic and eager or they have a tragedy or crisis to share. Their voices fill with emotion: sometimes eliciting disagreement and sometimes causing an emotional contagion in the multitude that is tuned in.

What makes listeners call – the thrill of being on air or chatting with a radio host? Is it the opportunity to connect with others in a sort of community? Is it the desire for approval of the host or other listeners?
People call because they want their story told, they want to be listened to. They feel the need to share that part of themselves which has remained unresolved.

This need is so overwhelming that at times when no sharing is called for- like when the program host is holding a discussion and inviting opinion- callers still describe their situation or story, sometimes in excruciating detail, derailing the entire exercise. Some of those who call in are confused, stuck, obviously still distressed and in need of resolution- a need that is obviously beyond the scope of the program. It would seem that the themes of programs touch raw spots, rekindle painful memories and cause people to call in to share the angst. It is an impulse born out of the urgent need to share and connect.

In that case why do they not call help lines or counseling centers that can help them resolve their dilemmas or hurt? If stigma is the reason counseling is not sought, then is it not stigma to share your name and story with hundreds and thousands of listeners? Is it possible that in spite of so much being written about counseling and the need for it at crucial times in our lives, it is still a misunderstood concept? Is it still confused with having psychiatric problems and sought out only as a last resort?

How healthy is it for callers to share their distress in a forum where they can get a warm response from a program host they have come to ‘know’ and feel familiar with, but who cannot help them with resolution? A forum that does not allow feedback? Is there then a danger that the short term relief that comes from sharing will prevent them from seeking sustained help? Countless missed opportunities come to mind- helping a mother who was given the feedback she was expecting too much from her child to understand how she could deal with her anxiety, an adolescent who needed to hear she did not have to bear the responsibility of keeping her parents together, a woman on the verge of walking out who could have been helped to make an informed decision, helping a man who questioned himself after a break up deal with self esteem issues. These are just the tip of the iceberg. Numerous people who need, and could benefit from, counseling call radio hosts every single day.

There is a real dilemma here. It is only a few channels that invite a participation of ‘real’ people as opposed to a ‘dumbed down’ interaction. This is commendable and required. But then ‘real’ sharing requires ‘real’ intervention that can be provided by counseling centers and help lines. And that is who people should be calling after they call their favorite radio hosts.

No scope for confusion. Scarlett Keeling is a victim many times over

Though the public reaction to Scarlet Keeling’s story is hardly surprising, I confess to feeling somewhat saddened. This is a classic example of the sort of societal reaction disclosure of sexual abuse always draws- of blaming and shaming the victim. And therefore of revictimization.

What happened to Scarlett is child sexual abuse, no doubt about it. Yet her story elicits mixed reactions and most of them subtly blaming her for her tragic end. Why is this the case when usually society is outraged by child sexual abuse and has no hesitation in condemning the perpetrator? I suspect it is because people have no difficulty when the victim appears to them as a ‘victim’. In Scarlett’s case however we are confronted with several details which immediately elicit our moralistic and judgmental attitude and lead to a confusion about her responsibility in the chain of events. Details about the way she dressed (provocatively) the way she behaved (promiscuously), her high risk behavior (took drugs, partied, had boy friends, stayed back alone) are taken as proof that she ‘had it coming’ and that ‘she asked for it’.

Before we condemn Scarlet and write her story off as a inevitable conclusion to the drinks, drugs and party lifestyle she chose to lead, we must take a look at her situation and see it from the perspective of child sexual abuse. I have correlated her situation with some of its characteristics.

Fact 1: She was underage and the world over the act of having sex with a minor is called ‘rape’ and the responsibility lies with the adult who should have known better. Even though Scarlett was sexually active it is still important to remember that age of consent is 16 years.

Fact 2: Even when the minor invites, accepts, takes pleasure from and willingly participates in sexual activity it is still called child sexual abuse and it is an offense. The focus needs to remain on the adult perpetrator as being responsible and not shift to judging the victim’s behavior. Scarlett’s behavior was inappropriate, but that does not justify her rape.

Fact 3: The responsibility to keep the teenager safe lies with the adults who have been negligent. In this case the mother who chose to leave Scarlett alone without money in an area where drugs were freely available, with no family or trusted person to take care of her.

Fact 4: Scarlett’ family situation put her at ‘high risk’ of being abused. Factors that contribute to higher risk are single parenthood, families living in isolation and poverty. This is highly correlated with substance abuse and emotional neglect. This describes Scarlett’s family situation precisely.
These factors increase children’s risk of abuse in two ways. First they decrease the quality and quantity of supervision and protection they receive. Second they produce needy, emotionally deprived children who are vulnerable to the ploys of sexual abusers and are entrapped by their need for friendship, attention and affection. Scarlett’s relationship with Julio seems to have been based on this despairing need and in her diary she shares feeling trapped and ‘stuck’ when she realizes that his claims of loving her are not true and that he is simply using her for sex and drugs.

Fact 5: Again Scarletts diary has been taken as evidence of her passion for sex, partying and drugs. But doen’t this read like a list of symptoms of sexual abuse? Is it possible that Scarlet’s behavior may have been a result of earlier abuse? Child victims of sexual abuse often display eroticised behavior or other self destructive behavior patterns including increased chances of using alcohol or drugs. It has been suggested that sexual abuse may lead some girls to become sexually active at an earlier age and seek out older boyfriends that may introduce them to drugs.

Fact 6: Bystanders chose to not be involved. Often non offenders or bystanders choose not to get involved even when they witness a child/teen being assaulted. This is especially true when there are more than one witnesses and none of them make a move to intervene. The adults at the bar who saw that Scarlett was drugged chose to ignore that she may need them to actively help her. Even when she was being molested in the car park in a condition when she could not possibly have defended herself(or consented). Perhaps each one of the people in the bar who watched the tragedy unfold till 5 a.m. hoped someone else would step forward.

Make no mistake. What happened to Scarlet was violent child sexual abuse and we must never lose sight of it in our confusion that arises from her, or her mother’s, choice of ‘lifestyle’. In fact it seems that Scarlett is victim many times over. In Goa where she was raped and murdered and unquestionably by society’s moralistic and voyeuristic reactions after her death.

Primed for Action

Many of us have read Malcolm Gladwell's 'Blink' and may remember the concept of 'priming' where the subtle words and messages we are exposed to can affect our behavior in profound ways. For example if we read a text sprinkled with words such as 'polite', 'considerate', 'respect' etc then our adaptive unconscious would think about these states and we would respond to our environment with these attributes (even in a demanding or difficult situation).

This thought came back to me very strongly a few days ago when I traced my suddenly feeling 'blue' to the fact that I had just finished reading the morning paper- a leading Delhi daily. On the spur of the moment I picked it up again and re-read the main news items on the front page. I was shocked to discover that a overwhelming number of news items were depressing and led me to feel hopeless or helpless or just plain angry. I also found myself wondering, later in the day, how much of the aggressive and uncouth driving behavior I see on the road may be influenced by our daily dose of morning news.

I analyzed the contents of todays paper to demonstrate my point. This is what I discovered.....

Power shortage this year again- get ready for summer pain.
A reference to hanging
A girl raped and confined by rogues
NREGA funds being siphoned off
India's future is going up in smoke
Trucks are Delhi's biggest killers claiming 305 lives as opposed to Blueline buses which killed 163
Aircraft hits wall in Udaipur
Arthur C Clarke is dead
Life and death war in Tibet

The only reporting that generated any cheerful feelings was about March 21st being Holi, Eid-e-Milad, Navroz and Good Friday.

How then are we being primed by todays words- 'pain', 'rape', 'killing', 'hit' , 'death', 'rogues', 'war'.....
What is the impact of the news we wake up to everyday on our behavior?
Are Indians being 'primed' for depression or aggression?

What does the newspaper in your city say?

Did someone not say "All the world's a stage"?

Every phase of our life seems like a stage.
New settings, new co actors with the old ones suddenly disappearing or playing a smaller part. At the moment I watch, waiting in the wings as the stage of my current life (or life as I currently knew it) is being emptied. Chairs, backdrops no longer there, people leaving.
It is time: they are making way for a new set. But what will it be this time? What role will I play?
Most importantly: will my fellow actors guide me towards a deeper understanding or will they reveal to me my unmet needs, inadequacies, sorrows, disappointments and anger? Reveal the path I now have to walk? That would be a relief really.
My wait seems endless. If in September I felt like a stone sinking surely but certainly towards my destiny I now have no awareness of any movement. I seem to be without any gravitational pull. Do I have no where to go or is this a going somewhere too?

In the meantime I take succour from what a friend said recently: "Meditation is not only a state. It can also be a stage (of life)".

Lead India?

I Settled down to watch the face off between the final 8 participants in the TOI Lead India Initiative and got up in disgust after the first few minutes. Why should this initiative with the claim of choosing a leader who will inspire a nation - "Tum Chalo to saara Hindustan Chale" be asked the name of Amitabh Bachhan's character in the film Satte pe satta and other such trivia?
Are we not choosing them for their vision and possible concrete contribution to the nation? Can someone explain this ridiculousness please?

FDA Hearing (1991) with Testimony