In respone to Alex's posting:
Mac offers us some serious and excellent questions to ponder. Who can tell another how much or whether or how to grieve? I think, to boil down Mac's comments, the question becomes, we aren't priveleged members of the Edwards household, we have no idea how they are dealing with this news, and shouldn't we give the family the benefit of the doubt? This was my initial reaction as well. Let's grant them their privacy and let them deal with the issue on their own. But my girlfriend made the excellent point that the Edwards's decision is so characteristic of the American psyche in that it doesn't acknowledge any feelings that may not be optimistic or cheery, that it refuses to acknowledge the gravity of death, and that it believes the best way to deal with psychological hardship is to channel one's pain into one's work. That's what Americans do best isn't it? Work away the hurt! I don't know whether John Edwards should cancel the campaign or not, but how bout a day off! I think the fact that Edwards hasn't even paused speaks to how much time they've really spent talking and thinking about this. And it's perfectly reasonable from an outside perspective to say, no, talking about this issue for a few hours is not enough, that focusing on the campaign is a way of avoiding the serious questions they need to face, and that a presidential candidate who values his own ambitions more than the quality of his wife's final days is repugnant. How can working on a campaign bring them together? What kind of emotional support can they offer one another when they're giving speeches on the environment or Iraq? How can they attend to one another's feelings between TV appearances, luncheons, fund raisers, speeches,shaking hands, and kissing babies, when they barely get a moment alone together? It's just not possible, no matter how we try to rationalize it for them.
As for their ability to deal with death because of the loss of their son, I'm not so sure that qualifies them to deal with the slow painful death of another family member. In fact, what was Elisabeth's response to the loss of her son? She chose to have two more children at ages 49 and 50 respectively. We all know how dangerous it is for a woman to have children that late in life, and it's also quite dangerous to the unborn. The risk of having learning disabilities, pyschological disorders, physical complications, and other health problems are multiplied dramatically when an older woman decides to have a child. But the Edwards needed more kids to get over the loss of the last one. Doesn't that seem kind of, well, selfish? Doesn't that mesh with how they're acting now? Instead of grieving and accepting the loss of their son they decide to have more children regardless of the health consequences in order to make themselves feel better. But it's just another mechanism of avoidance. The belief that you can turn to outside sources of comfort in the face of loss for relief is dangerous. As any grief counselor will tell you, the work of accepting something as hurtful and frightening as death needs to be done internally. Getting a new job, having more children, making more money, gaining more power, are all illusions that promise closure and acceptance, but in reality they distract from the hard reflective work that needs to be done by the individual. If you don't metabolize and digest what's happened to you, you'll never process and internalize the loss, and it'll eat at you for the rest of your life in profoundly destructive ways. The Edwards's emotional delusion is flat out unhealthy, and really speaks to the state of America's overall emotional dysfunction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Three cheers for a Greerblog. At last an outlet for the verbally gifted, polemically-motivated.
I'm in agreement that the "gravity of death" (great phrase) is something that generally escapes U.S. popular culture, much as shows like (the insanely popular and critically acclaimed) Six Feet Under attempted to alter. But like Alex and the Collins Clan suggested, grief, mourning, the hard work of digesting loss are complex processes, processes which, by the way, a cynical public (ie me and likely Greer too) would quite rightly refuse to take on face value if performed before the cameras.
Suggesting that the Edwards family had two kids solely as a way of grieving the loss of their first son, prevailing medical science be damned, is callous, friend, shallow and callous.
Or maybe just polemical...
Emotive man-hug: Keith
Interesting points, Keith. I agree that we probably would be suspicious of a public grieving process, although I wonder if we would trust more a private one that took them away from the camera. What’s interesting to me is the way that Edwards has spun his decision.
Look at the rhetoric that he used during his speech. "When this happens, you can go cower in a corner and hide, or you can be tough and go out and stand up for what you believe in." I don't have a problem with the family's decision; I'm not there so I can't judge their grieving process. Maybe Elizabeth doesn't want the family to grieve when she is still living.
But I do have a problem if we classify publicly dealing with this tragedy (essentially, acting sad or maybe even devastated) as "cowering" and not taking a second to breathe as “strength”. Did John and Elizabeth Edwards really feel like they had a choice? In America, where our media tells us that grief lasts a day and emotions can be avoided, did the family think that the American public would allow them to take time they might need? For once, can’t we admit that we’re not strong, that even a presidential candidate can be knocked down for a brief time?
If he wanted to take the time off, but felt that they couldn't for fear of being seen by the public (maybe unconsciously) as weak, that is a problem worth talking about!
I accept callous! Shallow not so much. There must have been a real pyschological drive working to put oneself and one's future children at such considerable risk. It smacks of a desperation and futility born from unprocessed pain. Of course I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
Emily does a much better job than me of teasing out some of the more substantial issues here. Was Edwards' decision the result of fear? Is America so callous (to borrow a phrase) that it can't allow someone a few moments to grieve without passing such a crushing judgement upon them? "Well that Edwards, he's just depressing! I wish he would get over it already!".
But then, what does it say about Edwards if he bowed to that pressure for the sake of his campaign? Not much.
Greer, again, I think Alex's comments to your previous post trump any speculation into the personal decisions of a married couple. Granted they are not an average couple: They are dealing with a terminal illness and a presidential candidacy. However, again, not all people deal with stress in the same manner. Not all people express love and understanding under equal constraints of 'face-time.' Not all people require long introspective thought before making a decision and acting upon it.
"Getting a new job, having more children, making more money, gaining more power, are all illusions that promise closure and acceptance, but in reality they distract from the hard reflective work that needs to be done by the individual...The Edwards's emotional delusion is flat out unhealthy, and really speaks to the state of America's overall emotional dysfunction."-Greer
Lots of relativism in there -- We don't have a baseline understanding of the Edwards family. We can't accurately impose the phrase "emotional delusion" to describe a couple whose emotional capacity and belief system we don't understand.
As an aside, keep in mind that his prospective job will allow he and his wife to express their beliefs and grant them the ability to affect the lives of everyone and everything on Earth. For them, that can be a self-transcending experience. For others, that can be a spiritual motivator, a testament to the will to live and touch the lives of those around you for the better.
As an aside once removed -- Greer, recall the lessons of Battlestar Galactica. Come on, now!
Of course people don't all deal with stress the same way. The question is, aren't some ways better and more healthy than others? I think modern psycholgy would argue that, for instance, drinking alcohol is not a good way to deal with stress as it can lead to disease and death. Avoidance is an equally well documented and negative way to manage trauma. We all do it. What are the consequences? The answer is in our own lives.
Emily, I agree that ample time should be given for the grieving process. However, I think John Edwards' "rhetoric" should be placed in due context: The announcement was not a knee-jerk reaction to Elizabeth's cancer relapse -- The Edwards family has been personally living with cancer since 2004. Heck, Elizabeth wrote a book that, in part, discusses it.
Now, I'm not sure, as you said, that the American 'media tells us that grief lasts a day and emotions can be avoided.' That strikes me as being an unfounded generalization to support a specific point.
Kyle--I didn't say that the Edwards needed extra time for the grieving process. In fact, I said I don't think it's really possible to judge the family's decision.
As for the rhetoric part, it WAS a kneejerk reaction to her relapse, but the rhetoric isn't affected by how long they've been dealing with cancer. It's just a public face using pretty strong language to say that taking time off would be weak.
I think Keith/Amy and Chris address the "gravity of death" issue pretty well, but of course it's a generalization! Unfounded? Hmm....is your opinion based on some hard data? Perception is a hard one to qualify. In general, I think people are more often praised for getting back into "the swing of things" than they are for taking the time away. Maybe this is because grief is uncomfortable for the people watching as well as the people experiencing? Just wondering here.
I think it's pretty easy to keep saying that "we can't talk about this situation at all, we don't know what they're going through, they can experience grief however they want." But as was mentioned in earlier comments, they have put themselves in the public eye. I think there are some merits to a discussion about the implications of their decision.
Fellas, you can call me Allie or Mac or Mizzac or whatever like you always have, this blog only lists me as "Alex" because it makes you log in through your Gmail account, which lists my name as such. Speaking of which, Greer, how 'bout setting up a blog with your own website? I can't figure out how to access this site without first going back to that link you provided us to the blog a couple days ago. It would probably get you more exposure, too.
Anyway...
I'm still not convinced at all that John Edwards has done anything wrong here. I agree that there's a generally accepted way decent people should deal with personal crises and looming death (drinking is no good, outright denial isn't either, etc.) I think it's safe to say that when Newt Gingrich served his wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital with some serious illness (or whatever the exact scandal was), it's OK for us to call him out at a complete asshole. But John Edwards doesn't get anywhere near this category.
"I don't know whether John Edwards should cancel the campaign or not, but how bout a day off! I think the fact that Edwards hasn't even paused speaks to how much time they've really spent talking and thinking about this." -Greer
And from the New York Times..."On Monday, Mrs. Edwards reported pains to her doctor and learned that her cancer might have returned. On Tuesday, Mr. Edwards cut short a trip in Iowa to fly back on a charter plane. The couple, alone, went to the University of North Carolina hospital on Wednesday for a daylong battery of tests that confirmed the diagnosis."
Now, I don't about you, but hopping on a private plane to fly back immediately to be with his wife when it was still only a possibility that the cancer had returned seems to me to demonstrate a little, I don't know, concern on Edwards's part. And again, how do any of us know what this couple has talked about privately between them? Like Kyle said, it's been an issue for them for years, and for all we know, they may have planned for this moment years ago.
Yes, there are busy schedules to fill, babies to kiss, etc., but this doesn't mean they have no private time together. It's not a month before the election, when candidates are racing around on 2 hours' sleep a night. Furthermore, she's actively involved in his campaign and with him most of the time--I bet they see a lot more of each other than the typical high-powered Manhattan couple working separate 16-hour days. They probably have even more time to grieve or talk about what they're going through than most people would.
"As for their ability to deal with death because of the loss of their son, I'm not so sure that qualifies them to deal with the slow painful death of another family member." -Greer
And what exactly would "qualify" someone to deal with a slow, painful death? Given that just about everyone will have to deal with family members' deaths for the first time at some point in their lives, that makes for a lot of unqualified people. I don't understand you can deem someone unqualified to deal with death, then blame them when they appear to fumble the grieving process.
I agree with Emily's point about Edwards's "cower or fight" comments. It wasn't the best choice of words to describe the decisions they faced, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to him being consumed by the campaign atmosphere and the fact that he used the kind of fightin' campaign words that works on voters, at least under more normal circumstances.
And finally..."Is America so callous (to borrow a phrase) that it can't allow someone a few moments to grieve without passing such a crushing judgement upon them? "Well that Edwards, he's just depressing! I wish he would get over it already!". -Greer
I hope the irony was intentional there.
Mac,
My point was that NOTHING qualifies ANYONE to deal with death more than anyone else which is what I took you to mean when you wrote your previous response. You were saying the Edwardses had already lost someone and suggested they were, as a result, automatically dealing with this new tragic information in a healthy way. My response is a fair rebuttal to your suggestion I think.
As for how often they actually see each other on the campaign trail, we should look into it. My wager is they barely see one another at all, much less have a jot of time for any serious conversation. How could they NOT be incredibly distracted by all the stresses of campaigning? I think your characterization of their lives together on the campaign trail is a stretch by any measure.
My quote about "he should get over it already" was an imitation of how a typically emotionally squeamish American might respond to the hypothetical news that John Edwards had suspened his campaign because of his wife's illness. Yes it was ironic.
Lastly, though I'm critical of the Edwards decision, I hope no one thinks I'm out to attack a woman fighting cancer or anything. They have a right to make whatever choices they want, I'm just concerned for their own emotional well being because this particular choice is particularly unwise and is illustrative of a larger American trend I mentioned in my post.
Emily, forgive me if I misconstrued your meaning.
Now, I did not say "the Edwards needed extra time for the grieving process." I did say "ample time should be given for the grieving process." This was a generalization. Insofar as generalizations go, this one is pretty well-founded.
Second, when you say the American media "tells us that grief lasts a day and emotions can be avoided," I simply draw a blank as to where I've seen or heard the media say something like that. I don't have any hard data to back up my opinion that your generalization was unfounded...other than the fact that you didn't support your generalization with any hard data. I'm skeptical about "The American Media" (as any good gatekeeper of information should be) but I also try to avoid broad generalizations that demote its general decency.
Up next, I agree with your contention "I think there are some merits to a discussion about the implications of their decision." Again, I agree.
What I said that you may think of as dissension, however, was "We can't accurately impose the phrase "emotional delusion" to describe a couple whose emotional capacity and belief system we don't understand" -- and -- "Alex's comments to your previous post trump any speculation into the personal decisions of a married couple."
Both of these statements have ground because they give the Edwards' the benefit of the doubt when doubt is based on speculation.
Finally, I think we may entertain different definitions for the phrase "knee-jerk reaction." In my little world, a knee-jerk reaction requires no conscious thought. I'd like to think that John Edwards experienced conscious thought regarding the situation (wife with cancer/campaign for presidency) between the time he learned of Elizabeth's cancer relapse and the time he made a public announcement.
In any case, Greer, I suggest you provide weblinks to the resources that you cite. The benefit of an original source will help enable discussions with fewer misunderstandings.
Big hugs to all ya'll.
Kyle
Greer,
Regarding their time together on the campaign trail and whether Edwards is ignoring his wife...take a look at this from today's Washington Post. Sorry to cut-and-paste so much, but it's says a lot about what we're debating:
"In the hours before yesterday's noon news conference, there had been speculation that her husband might suspend some of his campaign activities. But friends says they are certain that his wife would have been dead-set against any change in his campaign...Though Edwards said he expects his wife to be with him on the campaign trail when she can, he also added, "Any time any place that I need to be with Elizabeth, I will be there, period."
And then...
""Of course" John Edwards would have offered to suspend his campaign, says Chris Downey, the former wife of former Rep. Tom Downey, who befriended the Edwardses when they first came to Washington, "because he cherishes her. He cherishes his family. That's what he would do. He would stop everything."
But Downey and other friends say it would be Elizabeth's way to insist that her husband campaign on.
"Quite frankly, I suspect she was the one to say, 'Don't suspend the campaign.' She is not a quitter," said Debbie Dingell, a friend of Edwards. "She wouldn't think of it. They are a total team. She's sensitive to people, trends and political situations in a unique way. She is a very strong and a very decent woman."
Edwards has long been the center of her husband's world, the one whose advice he has always sought and for whom who he would practice his opening statements before a trial, said Bonnie Weyher, a friend from law school. She recalls a well-told story about Edwards having to make a split-second legal decision during a trial and looking to his wife in the gallery for her nod.
During the 2004 presidential race, Elizabeth Edwards almost always traveled with her husband, and aides knew she was the ultimate gatekeeper and her husband's closest adviser. She sat in on every debate practice and "not as a cheerleader," said one person involved in that campaign.
"She was very well versed in all the issues and had no trouble telling him, 'That was an awful answer,' " the source said. "He clearly relied on her heavily."
In her book, Edwards wrote about what informed how she campaigned. She decided she would not be a caricature of a campaign spouse. She would not change herself to fit a type. In all those nursing centers and shopping centers and kitchen campaign events, she would not -- and probably could not -- be someone she was not. Voters wanted that rarest of political beings: a real person. And that's all she could be."
To me, as long as that's accurate, it sounds Edwards's instincts were right. He was willing to give it all up for her, but given that she's involved so much in the campaign, and seems to relish it as much as he does, wanted him to continue. And again, while campaigns are busy and hectic affairs, they hardly prevent a candidate from seeing his spouse privately for a few hours every day, especially one that's constantly traveling with him.
As for the irony thing, I wasn't unsure about the typical American squeamish response you were imitating. That was clear. What I found strange was this sentence: "Is America so callous (to borrow a phrase) that it can't allow someone a few moments to grieve without passing such a crushing judgement upon them?"
To me, the irony was that the "crushing judgement" and the fact that America "can't allow someone a few private moments to grieve" is exactly what you were doing in the original post, and what I was arguing against.
Mac
Mac et al,
Ugh. That piece smacks of spin and justification. Do you think the campaign would EVER say that Elizabeth wanted John to stop running? Of course not. But I bet she DOESN'T want him to stop anyway. I'm sure he said to her, 'do you want me to take a break?' and she said, 'no, you must fight on!'. i agree with you, she seems like the kind of woman who WOULD say that. but it's John Edwards' decision, and DESPITE what his wife tells him, I think he should take some time off to be with her. of COURSE she's going to want him to keep running, it's the selfless thing to do and she seems pretty selfless in the grand scheme of things. but as a husband, it's Edwards' duty to say, 'you know what, i know you're such a great wife for commanding me to keep on fighting, but i want to spend some time with you and talk about this...because you're DYING and that's IMPORTANT, even more important than my giant sized ambition to be president. it's always what women are expected to do right? to put aside their needs (she's DYING) for the needs of their husband. Edwards should recognize his wife's trying to 'be strong' for him, and return the fucking favor.
When you start getting into "How people should grieve" you start treading on wingnut smear territory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JuTFtfmtEQ
In this clip, Michelle Malkin chastises Cindy Sheehan for protesting the war and not buying a headstone for her son. Malkin's suggesting that Sheehan doesn't care about the death of her son because of this. I wouldn't want to be compared to her.
b) anyone ambitious enough to make it that far (as edwards) is going to have a pretty high capacity to dismiss all external issues and rationalize his run for the presidency above all else
Michelle Malkin? That's a low blow buddy. That's like saying I eat puppies...in front of children...who I then also eat. I think I was telling Edwards TO grieve, not HOW to. but wait, there's an ethanol conference to attend!
I liked your B) though.
First of all, telling John Edwards TO grieve as opposed to HOW to grieve are the exact same thing.
Secondly...
"but it's John Edwards' decision, and DESPITE what his wife tells him, I think he should take some time off to be with her....as a husband, it's Edwards' duty to say, 'you know what, i know you're such a great wife for commanding me to keep on fighting, but i want to spend some time with you and talk about this...because you're DYING and that's IMPORTANT, even more important than my giant sized ambition to be president.' it's always what women are expected to do right? to put aside their needs (she's DYING) for the needs of their husband." -Greer
As long as we're going to start accusing John Edwards of sexism, however latent, isn't what you're proposing here actually the sexist way of thinking about it? By not taking Elizabeth's request seriously, you're assuming she doesn't know what's best for her, or is in no shape to think for herself or that she really wants him to bow out of the race but is just too afraid to say so. So John Edwards should say something like, "Now honey, I know you THINK you want me to stay in this race, but that's not what's REALLY best for you. Only I know that. And it's my duty as husband to get those silly thoughts out of your head and set you straight. I'm gonna quit this thing and spend all my time with you, because even though you don't know it, that's what's best for you."
I really doubt that after 30 years of marriage and four kids and a very successful career she would lack the courage to say something so simple as, "John, I want you to quit the race but I feel kind of guilty about calling for an end to this whole thing."
Right, that is one of those rohrshach tests in and of itself.
As though Elizabeth is not as ambitious as he or incapable of saying to him, "Hey, keep going". Or, if she doesn't say that, it's because she's thinking that but doesn't want to ruin "his" dream.
Well, it's time I leaped into the conversation. I agree that one's choices in such dire circumstances are not either I'm strong are face up to my deather or cower in denial in a corner. We have a friend who is also at stage 4 suffering from andeocarcinoma of the lung with "mets" to the liver. Her treatment has involved radiation, chemo, and maintenance drugs for the "chronic" disease as there is no cure at this stage. She has chosen to live her life as she did before the diagnosis. Her courage in enobling and humble. We are at times ashamed of our petty complaints when we learn Carol has suffered another setback...and heartened when she fights back.
I expect that Elizabeth Edwards made her choice to not "go quietly into the night" but to fight on and live her time on this planet to its fullest. Whether she does is privately as Carol has done or in publicly beside her husband, she deserves respect for her decision.
cheers.
Damon and Claire
Post a Comment