Unbalanced: A Question of Priorities

I'm feeling frustrated at the moment. Yes. Frustrated is a good word. Frustrated in a vague general sense at our society's "live to work" attitude (I wish I were in Italy: "work to live" baby!), and more specifically, at being in a career where many of our instructors, mentors, and role models give lip service to 'balance' in their lives, but model a workaholic's existence.

I'm not even sure where to start, my head is so a-jumble with ideas and frustrations. Hm... It seems like the English 10 'funnel' of 'start general, end specific' might be a good way to go. So here goes!

Generally speaking, I believe that work is just one part of our lives. I believe that if I sign up for a 1.0 FTE position, I should be working 40 hours a week, not 50, or 60, 80. I fully understand that there will be exceptional times and circumstances wherein it will be necessary for me to stay. I'm Ok with that. What I'm not Ok with is being expected to work a 1.5 or 2.0 consistently after having been hired for a 1.0.

I feel similarly about school. YES, school is a priority. YES, it's important. YES, unlike a career, it is time-limited (as in, your program only lasts so long, be it 4 years or 2). That doesn't change my belief that school should not be the 'be-all, end-all' of my existence while I'm a Master's student.

Many members of my program have priorities that look like this:
1) SCHOOL
...
...
2) family/friends/significant other
3) hobbies
4) themselves

Their priorities are, of course, their choice. What concerns me is when I see a number of these women exhibiting clear symptoms of emotional and mental unwellness because of their obsession with their schoolwork. It concerns me to hear classmates talk of never getting enough sleep, of never seeing their friends, of having no time to do the things they love. How is this healthy? At what cost are they doing their very best in the program? Is it honestly, well and truly worth it? Is it truly their 'very best' when they're exhausted and frustrated?

I believe the answer is 'no.' Research shows that our degrees will be obsolete in 3 years - what will matter most is our experience in the field. CASLPA (our national college) explicitly states that it expects new graduates to be generalists, not specialists. And one or two of our professors have acknowledged that what really matters is a solid grounding coupled with the ability to know where to look when you have a question. With all of that in mind, why are we worry ourselves sick about cramming every morsel of knowledge into our heads, knowledge that most of us will have forgotten by the time we get to our first jobs? Why isn't our focus on grounding ourselves in the field, and becoming familiar with the resources available us?

Our focus is on being over-achieving excellence monkeys because a) we're SLPs, and most of us are Type A overachievers to begin with, and b) because that's what our role models show us. I have heard several professors in my department discuss the high burnout rate in speech, advocate for balance, then be in their offices from 7am til 7pm 5 days a week and be editing student work over the weekend. I have heard ONE clinician advocate for balance and actually demonstrate it in her career - and the whole time she was telling us about it, her tone was so apologetic that I'm convinced she gets very little respect for what I believe is a wise and healthy choice.

Today it was suggested to me that perhaps I might find it necessary to put Jason 'on hold' and 'see what he's made of' during this heavy semester. This comment stemmed from something that I had said about it being difficult to have a boyfriend who works an 8-5, and has evenings and weekends generally free. Jason wants to spend much of that time with me, and I would like to spend that time with him as well. My priorities look quite different from those above:

1) Me and my health (including faith, physical and mental health, etc.)
2) School, friends, family
3) Hobbies
4) Other commitments (e.g., junior church)

I consider my family and friends to be just as important as school. Quite often I don't get to see my friends as much as I'd like because of school commitments. Conversely, sometimes I don't do all of my readings because meeting with Al for a coffee is more important. It's a difficult balance, but one that supports my number one commitment: me and my health. It's distressing to me to be told that for four months, I should put everything on hold and go 100% all out on schoolwork. Firstly, I'd make myself crazy doing that. I need the social part of my life in order to be sane. I need to walk away from schoolwork, and not just once or twice a week. I need some time every day where I can be just Elizabeth, not Elizabeth-the-student. Secondly, it would do a lot of damage to the relationships in my life. It's hard to maintain a friendship when you give no time to staying in touch or being available. I'm not asking to maintain 36 different friendships - I'm thinking of three that are vital to me, and that I have no interest in 'putting on the back burner' just because school is heavy. Thirdly, I have no desire to implement unhealthy, unsustainable patterns in my life. If I do nothing but school for the next four months, either I'll be burnt out or I'll be well-practiced to do nothing but work for the next four. I never want to be a workaholic, and I've no desire to practice being one now.

Clearly, my schoolwork is important. I love being a speechie, even if it is a lot of work. I know that sometimes Jason's going to get to go off and have fun while I'm sitting at my desk, writing yet another draft of my proposal. I know that sometimes I'll get a little bit less sleep, or only run twice in a week, or not get to soak in the tub and read a novel. All of this I know, and can accept. What I'm not going to accept is not seeing my friends, not growing my relationship with Jason, not hanging out with Jacob, not going to church... just because it's a heavy term. Some readings aren't worth it, some assignments can be done quickly, some extra credit can be skipped. The people in my life are just as important to me (moreso!) than this degree. And I believe that I can have both in my life. It's just a question of priorities.

Ela

Ela's Soapbox Presents: The Language of Touch

Way back on July 4 I wrote a post about touch in today's society. I promised another post regarding the language of touch... and here it is.

The Language of Touch

It's becoming common knowledge that our spoken words convey only 7% of the message that we communicate when we're talking to someone in person. The other 93% of the information is conveyed through our posture, body language, and tone of voice. It's why communicating via email or instant messaging is so fraught with danger - you're missing out on a LOT of information, and misunderstandings are rampant.

Clearly, humans do a lot of non-verbal communicating. Usually we think of tone of voice and body language as examples. I believe that a third category, or perhaps a subcategory of body language, is touch. As in, touching others. The most obvious examples of this are mothers with young children (you can tell just by how they hold their infants how much they love them) and people in dating relationships (everyone recognizes that little kiss on the forehead as the universal symbol for "I have tender feelings for you"). What's unfortunate is that communicating through touch seems to be limited to these two areas.

With regards to mothers and children, this is an area that's changing. It's much more common today to see men being physically affectionate with their young children. I think that this is fantastic. Our physical dads automatically create ideas within us about what our heavenly father is like - and I am utterly convinced that God wants to hug us. :) What's sad is that physical touch within many families (not all, I know) tends to become vastly reduced as the children reach puberty. I think that this is a set-up for disaster: teens no longer have any of their touch needs met at home, touch isn't encouraged in platonic relationships, so they seek it out in romantic relationships. What if we continued to tell our children that we loved them via touch even after they hit adolescence? What changes could that trigger?

And of course we 'tell' our significant others that we love them through touch all the time. The aforementioned kiss on the forehead, holding hands, frequent hugs. My question: why are these things limited to romantic relationships? What's wrong with pulling an "Anne of Green Gables" and walking hand-in-hand with a friend? (Ok, homophobic men - I know what you're thinking. But how about man-hugs? [You know - where you stand two feet apart and sort of awkwardly pat each others shoulders.] Or a gentle punch in the shoulder?? *grin* Or even just an old-school handshake?)

I can hear voices yelling at me "why do we need to use touch? I tell my friends and family that they matter to me by using words!" Please don't misunderstand me: words are important. I'm a speechie, after all! It's just that words don't need to be advocated for - people use those quite a bit. :) The problem with never using touch with people who aren't children or your significant other is that you lose the habit of it. The less you touch them, the more awkward it becomes to do so later on. This is fine while things are good, while words are adequate for the situations you're in. But what happens when things are in a worse place?

What do you say to someone who has lost someone whom they love? What words do you offer to a person struggling with mental illness? What do you tell your friend whose life is falling apart? I don't know about all of you, but when I'm upset, the last thing that I want is a string of meaningless platitudes: "It's alright, everything will be Ok, it'll all work out...." Sure, maybe everything will work out - but RIGHT NOW it sucks. RIGHT NOW I'm sad, and I'm hurting. I want you to be here with me RIGHT NOW, not in the future when everything's hypothetically all better (God forbid it not get better - then what would we do??). You see where I'm heading, right?

When your friend needs you RIGHT NOW and there are no words to offer to her, you can hold her hand, hug her, hold her while she weeps. Touch lets you communicate that you love her, support her, care for her, and will help to bear her burdens. All of that without having to whisper one pointless statement about how everything will be so much better later on. And it is so much easier to provide this kind of touch when you've been practicing it all along. You can communicate other things through touch, too: support, contentment, joy. It's a whole 'nother language!

While I've been very pro-touch in this little diatribe, I do want to offer up a word of caution. Touch is a language that we all speak, but we all speak different 'dialects.' What's just a hug to me ("I like hanging out with you, my friend") might be a message of "I'd like you to ask me out on a date" to a certain man. Standing close to a friend to show support might be interpreted as you being overbearing and pushy. Touch is a language that is deeply emotional, so miscommunications have the potential to be especially damaging. Using verbal support can help keep you 'speaking clearly' in touch. (E.g., "I'm a hugger - I hug ALL of my friends!") The other thing you should use your words for is 'checking.' Y'know - making sure the person you're touching is Ok with it. Some people are just NOT touchers, and you're just going to make them grumpy if you're all over them. Checking is a good idea: "Hey, I'm a hugger. I hug all of my friends, usually - is it Ok if I hug you??"

Provided that scaffold your touch with words, I think that you can share deeper, more emotionally charged messages with your friends and family if you speak to them via touch. Go ahead - reach out and touch someone. ;)


Love,
Elizabeth

Hold Me

I saw this cartoon this morning, and thought that it was just so sweet. And also true. And it perhaps this truth that leads me to my soapbox:

Touch in Today's Society

This is another one of those things that Megs and I talk about a lot. Our basic argument is this: People need touch. Our society says that touch is weird or wrong unless it is contained within a romantic relationship. People therefore struggle to meet their touch needs in a healthy way, and all kinds of unhealthy coping mechanisms ensue.

I firmly believe that people connect with each other on a deeper level when touch is incorporated. And I'm not talking about sitting in each other's laps, or being wrapped around each other like stripes on a candy cane. I'm thinking of an arm around the shoulders, a hand on the knee, holding hands. It brings the physical sensory portion of the brain into the interaction, and also integrates some of the more primitive portions of the brain. I also believe that it's harder to lie when you're physically being gentle with someone. Research indicates that babies who aren't touched fail to thrive - why would we as adults be so terribly different?

Yet despite this need for touch, our society has rendered touch taboo - unless of course you're romantically involved with the person. I suspect that some of this restrictiveness stems from the idea that touch is a slippery slope - once you start touching someone, and become comfortable with it, it's easier to touch more and in more personal ways. I respect the idea that we probably shouldn't encourage our teenage girls to be overly touch-friendly with their teenage boy friends. However. I firmly believe that this is a vicious cycle. We say 'don't touch, unless you're dating.' Then when they start dating, they start touching and find out that it feels good to have those needs met. There's nowhere else that's permissible to meet those needs, so they just keep on touching with whomever they're dating.

How easy is it to break up with someone who isn't right for you, but is the only person who is meeting your touch needs? How easy is it to walk away from the one person you feel a physical connection with, even if they emotionally abuse you? You have needs that you desperately want to meet, society says that there is one place to meet it, that place isn't healthy. Now what?

I believe that we can break this cycle. Beyond that, I think that as Christians we are called to break it. To the best of my knowledge, the majority of Jesus' healings involved him touching the people he healed. And let's be clear: I'm not advocating for sexual touch. What I am advocating for is the de-sexualization of certain kinds of touching: holding hands, hugging, and to some extent, cuddling/close sitting. It's my belief that if we can get these kinds of touches from people in a non-sexual way, we won't be so desperate to get them from a romantic partner. And I think that this is possible. With their permission, touch your friends. Touch your family. Be known as a 'touchy-feely' person. Be careful that you're not leading anyone on (goodness knows that it is a risk), but show the people in your life that you're Ok with touching even if you aren't dating.

So go ahead - hug someone today. And please: feel free to hold me.

Love,
Ela

Next time on Ela's Soapbox: The Language of Touch