To start off this Thursday’s post, I’m going to spin off of something I wrote last week:
“What is being brought to light in the podcasts is how, when we were homeless, we were not in the position to be able to distinguish, among all the authority figures and “pseudo-authorities” in our midst, who were the ones who represented benign agencies whose role it was to assist us, and who were the ones who represented more-or-less adversarial institutions designed to investigate and incriminate us. All these “higher ups” were relegated into the box of our “observers from inside” – and thus it was difficult to distinguish them, one from another.
“In a corresponding way, it was difficult for those who lived indoors to discern from among those who were outside who was a legitimate candidate for genuine assistance, and who was of a criminal bent. Those in the latter camp often feigned a need for assistance in order to gain benefits. They were also often very good at it. Whatever the case, I can assure you that I didn’t look much different than any other person on the streets — at least not at first glance.”
Having become homeless, I was dealing with this dynamic from the start. Add to this the conditions under which the homelessness began; that is, that I had been subjected to a costly medical misdiagnosis that at first I embraced naively, only later to find myself headed for the streets. The further I fell, the more it appeared that people in the medical profession were assuming authority over me. This in fact was indicative of a greater phenomenon: The further one descended down the socio-economic scale, the more people began to exert power and authority over that person. The lower I got, the higher became the number of “pseudo-authorities.” As more and more people seemed to grab power over me, I literally felt myself losing my last shreds of personal power–losing my value to society–as I became homeless.
The more people assumed authority over me, the more I rebelled against them. After all, they did not know me personally and made no effort to engage me meaningfully. What authority qualified them to boss me around? Why should this particular batch of emerging new people, eminently random in my span of life experience, be the ones to whom I hold myself accountable? In the case of the medical professionals in particular, I not only ceased to hold myself accountable to them, but I went so far as to address them from an adversarial stance, sometimes even a hostile one. For it was they who had, in my view, initiated my demise.
Abuse of Authority
The absolute audacity! The very sort of people whom I thought should be held accountable for my downfall were now in a position of supposed authority over me! They lived indoors; they had jobs with responsibilities and tenure; they wore badges. Mental health professionals did not differ much from security guards in their approach toward us, when we were homeless. Nor did we ourselves hold any particularly greater degree of respect for them than we did for anyone else who wore a badge.
While my previous relationship with my psychiatrist had ordinarily been pleasant as well as at least potentially helpful, my new position with respect to mental health professionals was clearly one of assumed subordination. Earlier, when I lived indoors and paid into my Kaiser health-insurance, I was happy to discuss life with my psychiatrist and more than willing to take her suggestions, since I felt she and I were on an even playing field. But now, mental health officials often showed up in cahoots with police officers and fire department personnel, in a scenario where the badges even of emergency medical technicians seemed no less intimidating than those of the chief executive officers of major corporate hospitals. The idea that any of these detached pseudo-authorities should even care to get to know me personally, let alone that I should be expected to blindly obey their uninformed commands, was absurd. There was no reasonable choice other than to rebel.
It was with such biases weighing upon me that I found myself eager to give musical and dramatic form to my emerging worldview. For one thing, the season of life was quite exciting. I was meeting other men and women who had fallen into the same predicament, and their views coincided closely with my own. In fact, our perceptions began to build and feed upon each other. Before long, I found myself overtaken by an alternate view of reality. It was as though I had become a member of an alternative society, formed by the interactions that entailed among myself and others, as we all set out to interpret what had befallen us in a way that made mutual sense.
It was in such an atmosphere that I naturally conceived of the musical that was to become Eden in Babylon. I felt an eagerness to use my particular skills to hone a medium through which a picture of youth homelessness in urban America could be presented. Naturally, the Kids in the story would hang together and be protective of one another, in an environment where they were constantly having orders barked at them by desensitized pseudo-officials. In such a scenario, an idealistic protagonist who finds himself subjected to brutal torture on the part of the “powers that be” in a psychiatric facility seemed to fit right in.
A New Life
Fast forward about ten years, and we find the playwright in a quiet college town in North Idaho, having not only lived inside for almost five years now, but actually having become acclimated to an accepting community of artists and academicians. In the process, I cannot help but have gradually embraced some of the details of functioning in a healthy indoor community that, when I was outside, I would have shunned as “mainstream.” The same system of tacitly acknowledged social conventions that I disdained when I was outside now appears at worst to be a necessary evil, and at best a convenience designed to make life easier on myself and on the others with whom I come into contact.
In such a markedly different culture, the thought of finding a compatible doctor and therapist, and of exploring medications that might assist in adapting to the established social norms, does not seem very far-fetched at all. There is at least a tangible ideal of connecting meaningfully with mental health professionals who may assist me along my path. Before, it was like, “get him in, give him some meds, get him out of here.” I’d be ejected from the system turnstile just in time to have all my new meds stolen out of my backpack in a food line.
But it is not only my position with respect to medical professionals that has changed. If something unruly is taking place in the neighborhood, I am confident that I can call the local cops, give them my name, receive their assistance, and be regarded as a responsible citizen in the process. This would not have been the case when I was homeless. The menacing nature of all the “badges” has diminished since I’ve been back inside. There appear to be fewer of them now, and the ones that there are no longer hover so high above me.
Also significantly diminished is the sense of inexorable evil wrapped up in this entity we called the Mainstream. No longer do I feel that there is this giant social ogre — the Mainstream — ready to expel me from all the blessings of indoor living if I don’t abide precisely by all its confusing restrictions and demands. Because of this, I feel that the cry that was so often expressed by my homeless brothers and sisters has been heard in the affirmative. “How can we get back inside without getting caught up again in the Mainstream?” That was the perennial question.
Authenticity and Community
The answer for me has been twofold. I had to first agree with myself to be genuine and authentic in my approach toward others and toward life. I had to be myself decidedly, and to believe in myself — otherwise I would construct from all my guise and façade the very Mainstream that I was trying to avoid. Life would again become a game in which I had already proven myself a very poor player, and I would risk being cast outside once again.
Secondly, I had to agree to give of myself to a community that I would serve and in which I would play a part. Here in Moscow, I have found a supportive church group, I have volunteered at a recovery center where I have found an emotional support group, I have found artists and musicians committed to my work, and I participate in theology groups with professors from both of the nearby Universities. This accountability – or connectivity – keeps me from the isolation that would occur if I were still setting myself as an entity separate from and almost opposed to the world — the natural iconoclasm that sets in when one becomes homeless.
Thus is found the construction of an authentic life within an authentic community. This differs hugely from what I experienced for years before ever becoming homeless. I remember on the Peninsula wondering if I had any friends among the many associates whom I classified as consisting of the “three C’s” — clients, colleagues, and co-workers. Many of my associations were contractual, and more money was indeed made. But few of my associations were truly meaningful. In a sense, this experience of a threatening Mainstream that sought to devour my true identity was itself only a social construct, because it was composed of the consequences of my own hypocrisy. All its many conventions and protocols were but a reflection of my own personal falsity.
That ugly scepter need not return to rear its head, for it has been dissolved in the greater reality of authenticity and community. And, as Kelsey Chapman pointed out in one of the podcasts, Eden in Babylon has evolved accordingly, in a way that parallels my own personal transformation. According to Kelsey, earlier drafts evidenced a protagonist who himself stood separate from the culture with which he was concerned, and who felt a false sense of empowerment that he could fix the situation from a detached, single-handed position. It’s possible I was a bit like that myself. In any case, the new protagonist – the new Winston – is a person who, like his creator, now merges in an even way with his community.
So the picture of the tortured Artist who ten years ago sat beneath a Starbucks awning in the dead of night while homeless, conceiving a scene in which his main character was subjected to torture in a psych ward, is no longer the prevailing picture. The Artist is no longer tortured by same.
The workshop was more than a mere musical workshop, for it awakened the desire deeply driven into all of our Actors to display how each of their characters represented a greater principle at work in today’s society. In that more holistic view, Eden in Babylon ceases to be a statement about the mental health industry or even about homelessness, for that matter. It becomes a statement about classism — and how it fosters the abuse of authority and power — as seen through the eyes of those who lack power the most.
Please donate to Eden in Babylon.