Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Essay Project #3

The Newest Way to Dominate

            Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is an illness that affects many children around the world. Its symptoms include hyperactivity, low attention span and heightened emotions which can often lead to temper tantrums. Medicines such as Ritalin and Adderall are prescribed by doctors to help the child feel and act more “normal”.  “Normal” in this sense of the word is meant to mean more like everyone else, a lack of individuality that prevents the child with ADHD from being a disturbance in everyday society. These medicines are often times very effective and sometimes too effective to the point that it causes the children to have an inauthentic experience in social situations. In addition it can cause the child to be even more separate and different from the other “normal” children of their own age. Finally the children with ADHD have a different way of thinking and reacting to the things around them, so by there very nature they are a potential threat to the established norms of society. This causes different ideas and thoughts to clash with each other, ultimately causing a disturbance to the delicate balance within society.

            In general, most people would agree with the statement that children are active and have a higher energy level than most adults. Children with ADHD have an even higher level of energy that causes them to have a harder time concentrating in the classroom and other social situations. That is when Ritalin and Adderall come in. These medicines change the energy and hormone levels in an ADHD child to a more normal and stable level, making them easier to control. From this perspective medicine acts as a dominating force used by those in charge, such as teachers and parents, to keep control of their environment and to retain their own power over those underneath them. Paulo Freire is an important theorist and intellectual in the area of education and literacy.  In his essay “The ‘Banking’ Concept of Education” he addresses the idea of those in charge needing to dominate those underneath them. In the essay he says “The dominant elites consider the remedy to be more domination and repression, carried out in the name of freedom, order and social peace (that is, the peace of the elites)” (6).  This can be related to children with ADHD, especially in a classroom setting, because the dominant elites, the teacher, use medications to assert their own dominance over the children that threaten their power the most, the children with ADHD. The medication acts to ensure that the order and peace of the classroom, through the eyes of the teacher, is maintained. This is significant because it makes the child acts in a completely different way than they would normally, making their experience with other children in the classroom impersonal. Thus the relationships that these children create and maintain with their peers are not as authentic as it could or should be because there isn’t a real presence of self for the child that is taking these medications.

            A child with ADHD has a different way of thinking and creating than a person without ADHD, this is due to hormone imbalances in the brain. When a child is different is scares a lot of people and a lot of them don’t know how to react when a child does something that is out of the ordinary. Children with ADHD do things differently on a very regular basis, making it hard for parents and teachers to accept and manage the child. The result again is more dominance and more pills. Paulo Freire says “to minimize or annul the students’ creative power and to stimulate their credulity serves the interests of the oppressors, who care neither to have the world revealed nor to see it transformed” (2). In other words, to prevent the children from having the power to think creatively adults will use medicine because it protects their interests in having the world around them stay the same. Medicine makes a threatening situation manageable because it makes the child less likely to push the boundaries, as well as making them less likely to question the dominance of those in charge of them. The power of the teachers and parents is les threatened when the children are medicated so the adults feel like they are in a safer environment, if not for their children but for themselves.

            The use of medication to kill the creative capabilities of children with ADHD also correlates with Sir Ken Robinson’s speech on how schools kill creativity. In this speech Sir Ken Robinson talks about how children don’t grow up to be more creative, but instead they grow out of their creativeness. Children diagnosed with ADHD often “grow out” of their ADHD and grow up to become fully functional and “normal” adults. Is it possible that these medications contribute to that? Yes it is very likely that over time medication makes it possible for children to grow up normally. Is it possible that these medications contribute to these children growing out of their creativity? Possibly, if the intention of these medications is to make the children more complacent by killing their “abnormal” creative skills it logically follows that these medications also causes people to grow up to have a lack of creative skills. Adult cases of ADHD are few and far between. Childhood diagnoses of ADHD are on the rise and more and more children are being medicated to solve their hyperactive and overly creative tendencies. In the future this could have some bad ramifications. As the children of today grow into adulthood they will be “cured” of their ADHD resulting in a noncreative, average citizen. This could mean a very bleak future for the arts and other creative outlets as less and less people have the creative ingenuity needed to excel in these areas.

            When different ways of thinking, ideas or cultures clash the result can either be incredibly good, or incredibly bad. Since children with ADHD have a different way of processing information from those around them it is very often that the clash with each other. Mary Louise Pratt calls the point where two opposing forces clash a contact zone. In her essay “Arts of the Contact Zone” she says “Many of those who govern us display, openly, their interest in quiescent, ignorant, manipulable electorate.  Even as an ideal, the concept of an enlightened citizenry seems to have disappeared from the national imagination” (5).  On a small scale, this idea of those in charge wishing to make the masses ignorant can be applied to doctors and parents who prescribe and give these medications to the ADHD children. The adults try very hard to make these medicines seem like they are important, even essential, to these children have any semblance of a “normal” childhood. They wish to keep the masses, in this case the children, ignorant of their true intention to have complete control of their children and the children and all situations around them. If the children, especially those old enough to really understand the situation, were to find out just how much the adults in their life are trying to control the way they think and act there would be a sort of revolt. Children would refuse to take their medicines, causing those in charge to panic because they would no longer have the control that they desire in this situation.

            The ultimate hope and goal of medicating these children is to ensure a community where everyone is the same. In a community where everyone is the same there is little room for clashing and a smaller chance of things ever changing for the better or worse. Pratt calls this sort of  “ideal” community “safe houses”, which means “social and intellectual spaces where groups can constitute themselves as horizontal, homogenous, sovereign communities with high degrees of trust, shared understandings, temporary protection for legacies of oppression” (6).  The idea of a safe house can be extended to understand why adults rely on medication so much to treat ADHD. Medications do have their positive affects, the medications help create a place where everyone has the same chances at learning. It makes a normally hyperactive, distracted child more able to concentrate. The use of medication is rooted in the natural desire to be part of a safe house where everyone included is relieved of oppression and threats.

 The concept of a safe house includes the idea that individuals should be free from domination and oppression. So, by the using medication in an attempt to create a safe house, adults are making it impossible for a safe house to exist. Medicine is used to dominate and control the children with ADHD by those in charge. The use of domination to create a safe house violates the very definition of a safe house, therefore a safe house cannot exist until medicines are not used anymore in an attempt to control situations.

            In today’s society, being the same as everyone else is encouraged. Being individualistic will make you an outcast because being different or doing something that isn’t already an established “normal” thing to do is viewed as being an inappropriate and wrong thing to do. John Taylor Gatto was a teacher for about 30 years when he wrote his article “Against Schools” about the way schools are not doing their intended job. In this article he says “This might as well be call ‘the conformity function,’ because it’s intention is to make the children as alike as possible” (36). While Gatto is talking about schools, this concept can be extended to society as a whole. Society in general conforms, often without question as to the motives. When one doesn’t conform they are criticizes to the point that they give up and conform because it’s the easy thing to do. This is why medicine is necessary. When a child with ADHD doesn’t or can’t conform to standards thrust upon them, they are forced to conform through medications. ADHD medicines fundamentally change a person hormonally, essentially making them a completely different person.

            Children with ADHD who are medicated do benefit from taking these medicines. However, the ultimate benefit goes to those in charge. Those in charge benefit the most because they have more control over their situation and can therefore assert their own dominance.  The intentions of the dominates is most likely good, a community where everyone is equal with equal opportunities for learning is a noble idea. However, in this case the means do not justify the ends. By medicating these children they lose themselves in the process because the medications change the way they think and act. In addition, the future of these children is devastated because they lose their capacity for creativity. In a future where a majority of the population does not have the ability to think creatively and problem solve areas of society that are essential suffer, such as the arts. Also by the very act of dominating the idea of a safe and equal community is shattered. Domination makes room for rebellion and a sort of class system where those being dominated are inferior to those in charge.

            The natural instinct to dominate those different from the majority is the reason that medicating children with ADHD is viewed as a necessary and even normal thing to do. Medicating children with ADHD is an act of domination, used to help create a community of individuals created equally. When in reality it creates a place where everyone can’t ever be the same, where children suffer the inability to simply be children. ADHD medicine has its benefits, but it is possible that the negative aspects of medicines like Adderall and Ritalin outweigh the positives.

           

2 comments:

  1. A. In your own words, explain the thesis of this essay.

    The thesis of this essay revolves around the idea that medications for the illness ADHD are more harmful in helpful to those being medicated. They lose their inability to become their own person and lack real connections with the world around them. These medications cause them to conform to society and keep them from discovering their unique qualities and outlets for creativity.

    B. Assess the "uses" of this essay: what is it doing/seeing/saying particularly well?

    The things that were done really well throughout this essay were thorough explanations and connections to in class texts. I found that by the end of the essay that I was a lot more educated on the effects of medication in people with ADHD and how it does in a way keep them from being their own person. I also thought there were a lot of strong connections to the in class texts that made me see them in a new light. This essay also contained a lot of evidence that showed ADHD medications could be somewhat harmful to those that take it.

    C. Assess the "limits" of this essay: what does it stumble over/occlude?

    The limits of this essay included repetitiveness, lack of analysis in some areas, and lack of explaining quotes. I felt like a lot of the information was being explained over and over again and that even though it was sometimes used in a slightly different way, it wasn’t as interesting as the previous time it was explained. I also felt like there were some areas that could have used more elaboration and deeper analysis, especially with the benefits of ADHD medication. I think that the quotes were woven in well, but there was a lack of explaining them and how they related to the main idea in some parts.

    D. Select one writing mechanic that this student writer executes particularly well, and explain why you think this is working in their essay.

    I think one writing mechanic that worked really well here was the use of texts. They are used in a way that supports the claim and thesis really well and make a lot of sense within the analysis.

    E. Select one writing mechanic that this student writer omits from their essay, or does not execute successfully (yet), and explain why it is not successful here. (Or, if it is missing altogether, explain what the effect of this is.)

    I think one writing mechanic that could use a little help would be citation snowmen. There were a lot of quotes that were introduced, but little explanation as to why that specific quote is significant to the main idea.


    F. Where else can this essay go from here? What potential extensions do you see?

    This essay has the potential to further analyze the effects of ADHD medication. I feel like there were a lot of points made that could be elaborated on a lot more extensively, and since this essay was relatively short there wasn’t enough room to do so. I think there could be a lot of potential to dive into the real meaning of this topic instead of just skimming the surface.

    G. What questions are you left with? What goes unanswered in this essay?

    One of the biggest questions was how come ADHD medication is as terrible as claimed? I understand that it does in a way hold back one’s personality, but isn’t ADHD an illness that requires medication to live a safe and healthy life? I also got the whole idea of oppression and conformity, but there is also the argument that children that have ADHD become a lot happier and functional by taking medication. I guess I would just like to know more about the benefits of these medications, and then hear about how your argument outweighs the benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A. Your essay revolves round how giving kids with ADHD with medicines and drugs inhibits their natural thinking methods and their creative capacity. On the basis of having them act "normal" kids are not able to act and think the way that they do because it is not predictable or controllable.

    B. This essay is really seeing and expanding on the idea of ADHD and the kids who have it. You took Ken Robinson's idea much further and expanded it in your own way. I liked how you used a wide array of sources and made connections to your essay and ideas.

    C. I felt like you could have expanded more on some of your ideas. A few of the paragraphs were short and just felt chopped off when the idea there could have been expanded on more. I feel like you could have talked more on safe houses because the length that it is right now it feels like it was just thrown in there for lengthening your essay (which could be true but there is something there!).


    D. Your essay really flows well and is organizationally sound. The exception being the one short paragraph about safehouses. All the rest of them transition really well and lead in and and out.

    E. Your conclusion does not really leave me thinking or wanting to take action. You summarized one of your points in it but I felt like you could have really livened up your audience with the conclusion but it just kind of flopped off and that was the end.

    F. You could write about how variety in society is better and creates more ideas and interpretations of things. One of the essays we read talked about that. How people from multiple backgrounds, races, and ethnicity all created a better discussion because they brought their perspectives to the conversation and there were more interpretations of issues.

    G. I think you could talk about the benefits of medications for ADHD a little more. You mention it briefly and kind of address that it is beneficial. What you could do is address it more thoroughly and show that it really isn't that great after all or something. The way you left it just degrades your argument slightly I think.

    ReplyDelete