Читать книгу Meaningful Living Across the Lifespan - Moses N. Ikiugu - Страница 7

Frankl (1992) postulated that the will to meaning is the primary motivation for behavior in human existence. Frustration of the pursuit for meaning, especially in the 20^th century (and probably in the 21^st century in the modern and Western world as well), constituted what he referred to as “existential vacuum”. The cause of this vacuum is a decline of engagement in realistic transcendental activities such as philosophical discourses, religious practice, or activities providing a concrete sense of purpose such as planting and harvesting, combined with a corresponding increase in materialism, reductionism, and nihilism (Mascaro & Rosen, 2005). According to Frankl (1992), this existential vacuum led to a major disease of our times which he called “noogenic neurosis” (existential neurosis). Simply stated, noogenic neurosis may be conceptualized as a disease of meaninglessness. Symptoms of this ‘disease’, as Frankl termed it, include boredom, anxiety, alcohol and substance abuse, depression, and even suicide.

Although the medical implication of Frankl’s description of noogenic neurosis as a disease might be debatable, his postulations have been discussed in detail by a host of psychologists, philosophers, and sociologists. Numerous studies have been conducted, and the results have been found to support these postulations. Chief among these findings is that there is a clear relationship between a sense of meaning in life and one’s quality of life (Iwasaki, 2006), which strongly suggests a range of determining factors. Also, Frankl (1992) argued that while there was no universal definition of life meaning, some of its constituents included loving someone or something other than oneself, exercising choice of action (at least choice of attitude regarding how to respond to life events irrespective of circumstances), taking responsibility to solve problems presented by life and fulfilling requisite life tasks, and having a goal towards which to aspire (which may be perceived as a personal mission in life). In the rest of the book, we will refer to the problems identified by Frankl as “issues of meaning/meaningfulness/meaninglessness” rather than adopting Frankl’s construct of “noogenic neurosis”.

This departure from Frankl’s terminology is necessary due to recognition of the fact that these issues are more socially based and therefore they are not ‘diseases as such’. They are often consequences of social problems such as domination of minority by majority cultures with subsequent loss of indigenous cultural values, materialism that makes it very difficult for people to dwell on activities related to deeper reflection, self-understanding, meaningful connection with others, and meaningful connection to important institutions such as religious organizations or other bodies that provide guidance to individuals in formulation of values. Furthermore, people experiencing problems of meaninglessness are properly viewed as victims of these social dynamics. As such, we think it is wrong to refer to what they are experiencing as diseases because that would imply that they need to be cured, while what they really need is: 1) to learn how to cope with social problems; or 2) help removing social barriers to meaning in their lives.

Consistent with Frankl’s discussion of the indicators of life meaning, based on factorial analysis, Iwasaki (2006) deduced some of the constituents of a meaningful life as: goal-oriented life, positive emotions, self-esteem, and sense of identity. According to Iwasaki, these factors have been found to be related to lower incidences of depression, high levels of hopefulness, and a good quality of life. It has also been found that positive emotions, self –esteem, sense of identity, and goal oriented life are enhanced through what occupational therapists and scientists refer to as occupations [i.e., “chunks of culturally and personally meaningful activity(ies) in which humans engage that can be named in the lexicon of the culture” (Clark, Parham, Carlson, Frank et al., 1991, p. 301)]. For example, participation in leisure occupations has been found to contribute to an experience of positive emotions and sense of well-being, positive identity and self-esteem, social and cultural connection, learning and development, and demonstration of personal strength and resilience, and in the process, to a sense of meaning in life (Iwasaki, 2006).

For a long time, work has also been recognized as a central constituent of a meaningful life. In the literary world, one of the best illustrations of this centrality of work to meaning-making is the story of Ivan Ilych (Bayley, 1967) written by Tolstoy (1960). In this story, Tolstoy described the desolation that Ivan Ilych, reflecting on his past life, felt at his deathbed. Having lived largely for the social and material benefits his position in the Ministry of Justice brought him, he suddenly realized how meaningless it had all been. In increasing physical pain he renounces everything, even his fear of death, and is finally able to die. As Michaelson (2007) observes in his commentary on the story, for many, work seems to be viewed as antithetical to meaningful life as seen in the statement that many people make to the effect that “one is too busy working” to be living (p. 335). Such statements, Michaelson argues, raise the question of whether working is the opposite of meaningful living. Illich (1980), for example, argued for the right to useful unemployment, and Lafargue (1996) for the right to be lazy. Clearly opinions about the meaningfulness of work are divided: some people argue that work has no meaning, and others argue that it is the essence of a meaningful life.

Michaelson further argues that the issue is not that Ilych or anyone else for that matter worked too much and therefore did not live as full a life as they might, or that the work they did was meaningless. Rather, the issue is that people fail “to live meaningfully” (p. 335). To avoid meaningless living, he suggests that one find a way of integrating work into his/her life such that it is part of “a life well lived” (p. 335). That means that one has to find a way of escaping the pitfalls of pathological use of work as illustrated in the apparently meaningless life of Tolstoy’s Ivan Ilych. In the story, Ilych used his work as: 1) an escape from an unsatisfactory marital life, in which he uses the social and material benefits as a way of keeping his wife occupied and appeased; 2) a way to avoid facing the authentic self; 3) a way of avoiding confrontation with his bare humanity; and 4) his entire identity. Ilych thus failed to recognize the moral value of his work in terms of what it could contribute to the good of humanity, and therefore, it became essentially meaningless. However, if contextualized properly, work can be a deep source of meaning in one’s life as illustrated by Frankl (1992). In a statement to a fellow prisoner at the Auschwitz concentration camp, Frankl passionately stated that the manuscript that he had smuggled into the camp at great risk to himself was his life’s work. To him, this work contributed to his life meaning to the extent that he was ready to die for it precisely because he saw it as contributing to something larger than himself.

However, Frankl’s life work was a creation, something in which he had invested himself and which represented the expression of his thoughts, i.e. it had a cultural dimension. Many people do not consider work to represent anything expressive. Rather, they see it as a means of earning money, although it may also be a source of opportunities for social interaction and expression of some interest. Lafargue (1996), Marx’s son in law, wrote the Right to be Lazy in 1883 while living in Northern France. He was concerned about the conditions of workers in the textiles mills of the region, many of whom worked 14 hour shifts and were injured because they were so tired they were prone to accidents. The money they received was very low, and for all their long shifts and risk of injury or death, the goods they produced were often dumped on the market in order to be sold off quickly to make room for the newest textile fashions. Lafargue argued that the workers, many of them women and children, deserved better and safer conditions. Similar arguments are still raised with regard to the exploitation of children and other workers today in the manufacture of textiles, sports goods and fashion items. The factories which produce them have moved into countries where labor is cheap and guidelines for improvement of health and safety conditions are more relaxed. In the UK, the rising demand for low paid workers in the private agencies in the social care industry has resulted in many women working flexible hours but on low rates of pay. This often results in a noxious combination of low motivation and long shifts, with an increase in risks for back injuries and other forms of accidents and injuries. People who work in such conditions can hardly be seen as having an opportunity to see their work as having any meaning in their lives other than simply a source of money.

The contribution of the meaninglessness of work in the modern society to the problems that Frankl identified is clear. Illich (1980) argued that a lot of what was actually produced in a capitalist society was not assigned monetary value. The labor expended by people engaged in production of such goods, he argued, was therefore not recognized as having worth in capitalist terms, even though it was useful in helping to maintain community. For example, volunteering in a soup kitchen, caring for an elderly parent, or teaching kindergarten is not valued much in a capitalist economy. Yet, such work is critical to the well-being of the community and society as a whole, and therefore is very meaningful work in Frankl’s sense. Furthermore, Illich maintained that many of the things produced in a capitalist system have a built in obsolescence, or else are subject to the manipulation of fashion. Therefore many workers are engaged in production of things which do not have real community value, such as producing 20 varieties of cereals, or 100 types of body-wash.

Many of the things we purchase with the money we earn from producing these things without real value are themselves without real purpose. We go shopping to buy things which make us temporarily feel good, but ultimately, they are not particularly useful. Clothes look good for a year or so and then become old fashioned. The average music CD or a DVD, once purchased, is probably played three times while in our possession and then never listened to or viewed again. Each year people in the UK generate tons of rubbish by buying things that they do not really need, and then find they have to get rid of. The same can be said of the US. All this garbage is stuff that other people make in their work, and that we buy with the proceeds of our work. As Ivan Ilyich (in Tolstoy’s novel) finds out as he learns not to be so concerned about bent photograph frames or chipped new crockery, none of this matters very much. Illich (1980) suggests that a community held together by the voluntarily given work contributed by its participants might be more durable and healthier for its citizens than one characterized by accumulation of material things.

This view was reiterated by Putnam (2000) who pointed to one particular development which he thought was a source of the problem of decline in social capital (the value of other through our relationships with them) in the US as the fact that people invested so much of their energy in their work that they had no energy left to invest in their communities. He argued that work had become the community. However, because work itself was being redefined by a global economy in which job security was less guaranteed, the risk was that the work-based community was rootless and shifting. One day it was there and the next it was relocated to a place where labor and site costs were cheaper. Updike’s Rabbit (1991a; 1991b) is perhaps an exemplar of this shift in community values and subsequent meaninglessness. In four novels the life of this character spans the transition from the pre-television age to an era of the proliferation of consumer goods progressing from athletic basketball jock to an overweight and flabby car salesman with a heart condition. At the end of the tetralogy he returns briefly to his youthful pre-occupation with basketball, but after a life of modern consumerism, this is a mere fancy. In his way, despite the possibility that his life has progressed downhill ever since the beginning of the narrative, Rabbit manages a similar last minute redemption as Ivan Ilyich, suggesting that even in the modern consumer-oriented society, redemption of a sense of meaning in peoples’ lives is still possible.

Occupations, including those of leisure and work, offer powerful means through which individuals and societies can be used to mediate perceptions of meaninglessness and offer the redemption alluded to above. We can have confidence in the power of occupations in helping us achieve the above stated objective based on our observation that when people die, they are often remembered in terms of the things they did with other people, and mementoes related to such things as sports affiliations or social, usually family, roles. As we will see in chapter two, English worker-writers often defined themselves in terms of their work or other occupations, particularly occupations related to increasing a sense of personal efficacy and a feeling of connection to other people. It follows then that one way of addressing Frankl’s problem of meaninglessness in modern society would be by helping people find ways of orchestrating their occupations in such a way that what they do every day helps them experience positive emotions, create a positive identity for themselves, connect to something bigger than themselves, love someone or something other than themselves. In the process of engaging in such occupations, people may experience a sense of well-being due to a feeling that their lives are meaningful and purposeful. A member of a gardening project in Sheffield described to Nick how attending an allotment group twice a week and being given a plant to grow and care for through the winter gave him something to structure his week, and a chance to connect to other people, which made that period of time very meaningful for him. Specifically, he stated:

I don’t socialize with a lot of people outside the group and talk to anybody […] it [taking care of the plant] does get me out of the house early in a morning and it does get me in a weekly routine. And that helps me a great deal, cause you wake up in a morning and you think ‘Monday!, Ah I can go somewhere,’ you start feeling you belong somewhere, to me. And even later in the week, Thursday, I can go somewhere, even if I didn’t have somewhere to go that’s two days in the week I can have talks with people and possibly if I had a full weekly routine I wouldn’t get a situation like this where I can talk to people like this, so this would still be beneficial no matter what situation.

In their work, occupational therapists and occupational scientists can help people choose to engage in occupations that contribute not only to connection with other people, but also that facilitate connection to a cause that transcends personal “desires for pleasure or power” which would lead to “a meaning-saturated attitude” (Mascaro & Rosen, 2005, p. 987). By helping people create meaning in their lives through what they do as described above, occupational therapists and occupational scientists would be enabling them to develop personal and social strategies to resolve their perceptions of meaninglessness.

Furthermore, because occupational therapists and occupational scientists are educated to understand the form, function, and nature of occupations (Clark et al., 1991), it may seem that they are well placed to help people structure their occupational lives in such a way as to counter the experience of life as lacking meaning. Yet, there is little evidence that occupational therapists and scientists are proactively responding to this challenge to take their rightful place in serving humanity. That is perhaps why clients have repeatedly expressed disappointment with the services they receive from occupational therapists, while at the same time pointing out the potential of the profession to play a crucial role in helping people find meaning in their lives.

A good example of the above mentioned disappointment was by the world renowned astrophysicist Steven Hawking (1996), who wrote the following:

Now, however, people with disabilities and other previously disadvantaged groups, such as women and blacks, are demanding that they should be able to play a full part in society. As I see it, your job as occupational therapists is to make sure that they can. I cannot say that professional occupational therapists have been much help in my case, but may be I just did not encounter the right therapists. (p. 27, emphasis mine).

Hawking went on to suggest that:

With modern technology, it ought to be possible for many people with disabilities to lead a life in the community and to contribute to society. It is the task of occupational therapists to enable them to do this. The important jobs involve mental and organizational abilities rather than physical strength and dexterity. This is the direction in which people with disabilities should be encouraged rather than being put onto carpet making and basket weaving, which are inappropriate for those who are mentally alive. (p. 28, emphasis mine)

Occupational therapists need to respond to Hawking’s criticism by deemphasizing physical strengthening and focusing on helping people do things that make their lives meaningful. Although strengthening and re-education in motor functioning is indicated for some clients, these strategies should not be central to occupational therapy practice but only adjunctive to helping people engage in valued occupations. Criticisms similar to the one by Hawking have been leveled to occupational therapists by other famous clients, such as the eminent cultural and field anthropologist Robert Murphy (2001), who developed a spinal cord tumor in 1976 and described his experience in occupational therapy during his rehabilitation as a degrading, meaningless exercise.

If occupational therapists focus on helping their clients experience a meaningful existence by participating in society through engagement in valued occupations, they may answer Frankl’s challenge to help people deal with the problem of meaninglessness resulting from an existential vacuum. In recent years, with the emergence of the new professional paradigm focusing on occupation-based, client-centered, and collaborative practice, meaningful occupations are being rediscovered as the foundational media for authentic occupational therapy practice (American Occupational Therapy Association [AOTA], 2014; Kielhofner, 2009). Numerous theoretical conceptual practice models have been developed to guide therapeutic interventions with meaningful occupational performance and participation in life as the overarching goal of therapy. Examples of such theoretical frameworks include the Model of Human Occupation [MOHO] (Kilehofner, 2009), Canadian Model of Occupational Performance (Law, Polatajko, Baptiste et al., 2002), and the Occupational Adaptation frame of reference (Schultz & Schkade, 1992; Schkade & Schultz, 1992; Cole & Tufano, 2008).

The notion of occupational meaningfulness and in particular how occupations are used in meaning-making has been explored extensively in the occupational science literature (Aguilar, Boerema, & Harrison, 2009; Hocking, 1994; Ikiugu, 2005; Kumar, 2010; Rozario, 1994; Shank & Cutchin, 2010). However, the constructs of life meaning, meaninglessness, meaningful occupation, etc. have not been clearly defined in the occupational therapy and occupational science literature. Similarly, the question of how individuals can be assisted to structure their occupational lives in order to enhance meaning in their lives has not been adequately answered. In order to meet the challenge posed by Hawking, Murphy, and others, we have to negotiate with people to facilitate their full access to participation and the pursuit of the important goals to which they aspire in their lives. Meaningful occupational performance may be one way of doing this.

Meaningful occupational performance is, as Seibers (2008) writes, a functional challenge especially for people with disabilities. For such people, meaningful occupational performance means

living] with their disability, to come to know their body, to accept what it can do, and to keep doing what they can for as long as they can. (p. 69)

Initially Seibers’ statement seems to be offensive, a point which he acknowledges. However, he goes on to explain that for people with disabilities to be properly represented in social discourse, they have to be recognized as who they really are, even as we recognize that the needs of every disabled person cannot be addressed, because there are neither the remedies nor the resources. If we recognize a need to mediate Frankl’s problem of meaninglessness, we have to recognize that it is a problem which cuts across all demographics in a society which disables. The problem of meaninglessness in the sense suggested by Frankl is experienced by all people including those excluded from society due to disability. As Snyder and Mitchell (2006) point out, the basis of this exclusion is paradoxically located in the notion of individual equality. The idea inherent in the construct of equality is that we are all equal in this society. Unfortunately some are unable to participate fully because their disabilities prevent them from doing so. In that case, the answer is therapy and occupational therapy in particular.

Where does this leave occupational therapists? Perhaps a beginning point may be recognizing that while there is a range of technical skills, strategies, and interventions with which they can address the needs of people with disabilities, they (and all their multidisciplinary colleagues) may not have answers. Consequently, they have to navigate to a solution by working with their clients rather than patronizing them. This denotes that client-centeredness has to be critically explored as a way for occupational therapists as professionals to work in collaboration with their clients to optimize availability of resources to enable clients participate fully in society. If they are to employ a concept like meaningful occupation, occupational therapists have to be clear about what they mean by meaningfulness. An attempt will be made to explore this construct from multiple perspectives in the rest of this book.