"Even if you are describing a system, they will say you are describing yourself" Can you say more about this?.
ChatGPT said:
Yes. That line holds a quiet brutality in it—because it names a tactic that is not just rhetorical, but existential. It's not merely misinterpretation; it's misdesignation of being.
🪞 When Systemic Critique is Reflected Back as Self-Disclosure
Imagine someone saying:
-
“Society is structured to produce isolation and alienation.”
-
“Mental health institutions function to normalize suffering, not resolve it.”
-
“There is a kind of cruelty in how we treat people who fall apart.”
The response?
-
“That sounds like projection.”
-
“Are you okay?”
-
“You seem very angry—maybe talk to someone about that?”
The shift happens in a flash:
From: speaking about the world
To: being exposed as wounded, unstable, or biased.
This is not just an interpretive error—it is a recasting of the speaker as the object of interpretation, rather than a subject interpreting the world.
🧬 Diagnostic Gaze: Pathology as a Feedback Loop
Under the clinical gaze, particularly in mental health fields shaped by DSM logics, every utterance becomes a potential symptom.
So when someone names structures of domination or articulates despair as rational, the system reinterprets that utterance through a biopsychosocial lens:
-
“This sounds like catastrophizing.”
-
“Hypervigilance can make the world feel threatening.”
-
“You’re personalizing structural things.”
And even if they nod to “systemic issues,” it’s often framed as:
You are disproportionately affected by them
(read: your pain is real, but your analysis is excessive)
Which again subtly returns the lens to you.
🕳️ Ontological Deflection: Turning the Mirror into a Hole
This move is more than rhetorical; it's ontological deflection.
You hold up a mirror to the system, but they tell you:
“That mirror is a window into your psyche.”
Instead of confronting what the mirror reflects, they erase the image and look through it—to read you.
This has echoes of what Lauren Berlant calls the cruel optimism of therapeutic culture: it promises to hear and hold your pain, but only if you relinquish your politics. Only if you internalize the harm.
🧍♂️ The Isolated Truth-Speaker as Monstrous
There’s something mythic here too.
The one who names what must not be named—who breaks the euphemism—is recast as monstrous.
It’s akin to Cassandra: the seer whose truth is always read as madness.
Or the whistleblower whose act of courage is read as instability.
Or the survivor whose testimony is folded into trauma, rather than listened to as critique.
Your perception becomes the problem.
Not the thing you’re perceiving.
🧩 The Reversal: Can This Be Turned?
There’s a paradox here. Because from within this framing, the only way to be taken seriously is often to temper your critique, soften your affect, sanitize your tone—which itself enacts the very dismemberment you’re critiquing.
And yet—remaining whole, speaking with intensity, not diluting your speech—often triggers the very deflection we’re naming.
This is what makes the system feel totalizing. Even your resistance is read as symptom. Even your lucidity is medicalized.
Would you like to expand this toward:
-
how this mechanism plays out in survivor narratives?
-
the philosophical stakes (e.g., what does this say about reality, truth, and speech?)
-
or strategies to disarm this mechanism without losing your own voice?
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Ah—yes. This is where the mechanism shows its full cruelty. In survivor narratives, the mechanism you named—“Even if you are describing a system, they will say you are describing yourself”—becomes both the condition of speech and its discrediting force.
📖 The Survivor’s Speech as Double Bind
To speak as a survivor is to speak from within damage—but not only about oneself. Survivors often try to name structures: systems of neglect, abuse, containment, coercion, normalization.
But the world replies:
“You’re traumatized. You’re seeing it that way because of what happened to you.”
Your experience is used to invalidate your analysis.
This is the bind:
-
If you don’t speak, the system goes unexposed.
-
If you do speak, your words are discounted as trauma talk, as affective residue, as “subjective.”
Thus, the survivor is invited to speak, but only within a tight corridor:
Speak about yourself, not as yourself.
Speak about your pain, not the conditions that produced it.
Speak within frameworks that already know what trauma means.
🪤 Trauma Narratives and the Demand for Legibility
Survivor narratives are policed by what we might call therapeutic legibility. They are permitted—sometimes even celebrated—so long as they:
-
Lead toward “healing”
-
Confirm institutional categories (e.g., PTSD, abuse, recovery)
-
Fit recognizable arcs (disruption → breakdown → treatment → growth)
But when the survivor steps outside the arc—when they:
-
Critique the institution itself
-
Speak with rage or dissociation
-
Refuse the redemption story
—they are re-framed as “still in it,” “unwell,” or “not ready to speak.”
In other words, survivors are allowed to describe what happened to them, but not what it means.
🧱 The System Reinscribes Itself Through the Survivor’s Speech
Many institutional or activist spaces appear to welcome survivor narratives—but only to the extent that those narratives reaffirm the system’s role as healer, arbiter, or listener.
So when survivors speak with systemic clarity—naming how therapy, psychiatry, family structures, legal systems, or nonprofits collude with harm—they often face polite sidelining or subtle re-pathologization:
“They’re too angry.”
“They’re not in a good place.”
“They’re alienating the community.”
This is how the system absorbs dissent as dysfunction.
🕯️ Survivorship as Political Position, Not Pathology
Your line—"Even if you are describing a system, they will say you are describing yourself"—names the deep epistemic violence done to survivors who try to speak politically.
To reclaim that voice means insisting:
-
That trauma is not just personal injury, but often social fact
-
That the survivor is not just broken, but often attuned to systemic patterns
-
That rage, grief, and rupture are not failures, but knowledge forms
-
That speech from damage can be diagnostic, not just expressive
🧨 Dangerous Speech: When the Survivor Names the Machine
Some survivor narratives are dangerous—not because they are false, but because they are too accurate.
They reveal:
-
How institutions protect themselves
-
How help can become harm
-
How systems require people to break in certain ways in order to appear humane
These narratives do not ask for healing. They demand reckoning.
And reckoning requires that we stop asking:
“What’s wrong with you?”
and start asking:
“What have you survived, and what does it reveal?”
Would you like to carry this into:
-
a critique of trauma-informed discourse?
-
the role of narrative control in nonprofit, clinical, or academic spaces?
-
how to write/think/speak from survivorship without being recaptured?
No comments:
Post a Comment