Illuminating The Dark Side of Occupation

International Perspectives from Occupational Therapy and Occupational Science

Rebecca Twinley, Rebecca Twinley

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780429561221
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Médecine
• Categoria: Ergothérapie

This innovative volume introduces Twinley's concept of 'The Dark Side of Occupation'. Focused on less explored and under-addressed occupations, it is an idea which challenges traditional assumptions around the positive, beneficial, health-promoting relationship between occupation and health.

Emphasising that people's individual experiences of occupations are not always addressed and may not always be legal, socially acceptable, or conducive to good health, the book investigates how these experiences can be explored theoretically, in practice and research, and in curriculum content for those learning about occupation. Beginning with a discussion of some assumptions and misunderstandings that have been made about the concept, the substantive chapters present and analyse tangible examples of the concept's applicability. This ground-breaking and practice-changing text provides ideas for future research and highlights contemporary, internationally relevant issues and concerns, such as the coronavirus pandemic.

This book is an essential purchase for students in occupational therapy and science, and valuable supplementary reading for practitioners. It is also relevant to a wide interdisciplinary audience with an interest in human occupation, encompassing anthropologists, councillors, criminologists, nurses, and human geographers.

1 The dark side of occupation

An introduction to the naming, creation, development, and intent of the concept

Rebecca Twinley

Naming the concept: when a little bit of disruption navigates some change

I chose to begin this chapter with the issues that have been brought up through various forums (Twitter being the one I mostly use) regarding my use of the word “dark”. This has been perceived, judged, and assumed to either be a moral judgement or, even, to hold negative racist or imperialist connotations. There has also been a great tendency for people to inaccurately use the term “dark occupations”. That is not my concept, nor what I chose to name it. After the publication of someone’s blog post titled “dark occupations” there were Twitter comments that it is a “slick and careless term that seems to have been creeping into the occupational therapy vocabulary”; I agreed by simply stating “#thedarksideofoccupation, not ‘dark occupations’ ”. Other comments have included that “it makes them sound bad” and that “occupations aren’t dark”. I find these interesting because they derive from drawing on adjectives of the word dark that can be found in the dictionary as being “sad” or “evil”, which would mean prescribing an inherent “bad” or “negative” quality. That said, if we really think about all the occupations people do and might experience, one of my goals was to challenge the assumption that occupations are always “positive” and “good”, and to emphasise how occupational science and occupational therapy have overlooked many occupations, including those that are perceived or judged to be bad, negative, upsetting, demoralising, and evil. As my friend and colleague, Danielle Hitch, once wrote in a message to me: “occupation ain’t all sunshine and unicorns”.

The quote that follows is taken from an email exchange with another friend and colleague:

The association to race irks me. As a black person, being dark is not a negative thing and it should not be associated as such. To problematize dark in that respect perpetuates the prejudice.

She wrote this to me after I had shared some of the comments on Twitter with her, including one that stated “dark can be viewed as a micro aggression re race – ie dark and light”. Personally, as someone who has experienced rape and interpersonal violence, this struck me because the term microaggression uses language that implies intended violence in order to describe verbal or written conduct. Further, White (2018) suggested “microaggressions are subtle snubs and slights directed toward minorities that are expressed unconsciously. But unconscious acts, by definition, are not intentional”. So, if my use of the word “dark” has been received as a subtle snub or slight, or as crude prejudice toward you, I hope my clarification in this chapter diminishes such unintentional impacts. In Chapter 4, Hart suggests that, as a fledgling concept, the dark side of occupation is about the “unknown, unacknowledged, messy, and complex aspect of occupation”, which offers some explanation as to why it can feel uncomfortable. Level of comfort is certainly a highly personal psychological state. For some, considering occupations that challenge the traditional assumptions made, especially those that focus on the links between health and occupation, can be challenging professionally more than personally. For others, personal views dominate and can cause a significant barrier to being able to consider occupations beyond the more traditional (which I would argue is mostly safe and comfortable) realm.

To be very clear for those who have misunderstood, I was not making a moral judgement, nor was I upholding racism – or shadeism or colourism for that matter – through use of the term dark. I am acutely aware that language is a potent force of our societies; for this reason, whenever I mention the concept I strive to be transparent: it is about occupations that have been hidden or not been implicit, and I would never suggest we should label other people’s occupations as “dark” in any sense, as this truly would be making a value judgement about their subjective experience.

A terminological debate

In October 2019, Clare Hocking and I delivered a paper at the Society for the Study for Occupation: USA conference, titled “The ‘Dark Side of Occupation’: Creation and Intent of the Concept” (Twinley & Hocking, 2019). In this, we addressed the labelling of occupations as “dark” as opposed to those that are “in the dark”. We spoke about how the former means that a moral judgement is being made about another person’s subjective experience of occupations. Whereas, “the dark side of occupation” is figurative language pointing to the systematic lack of attention and exploration given to certain classes of occupations that have, therefore, been left in the dark. This terminological debate highlights the need to differentiate between viewing occupations as illegal/taboo/risky/unsanctioned (as the organisers of the conference had done), thereby stigmatising both the occupations and people who engage in them, versus the societal benefits of building knowledge of occupations about which little is currently understood, especially where there are real potential societal benefits of building such knowledge.

In our paper, Clare asked me: “On the topic of terminology, the term non-sanctioned occupation has more recently been proposed. How does that compare to what you’re thinking about?” I explained that from my perspective, the work of Kiepek, Beagan, Rudman, and Phelan (2019) regarding silences around occupations and Gish, Kiepek, and Beagan’s (2019) regarding substance use is exactly in line with illuminating less desirable, less known or explored occupations. I responded that I was aware Kiepek et al. (2019, p. 347) had labelled my concept “a pejorative framework” but that I felt we share the goal of trying to show the need for diversifying perspectives on human occupation. As I explained at this conference and in a more recent publication (Twinley & Castro de Jong, 2020, p. 24), my “intention was not to express contempt or disapproval regarding people’s subjective experience/s of occupation; indeed, it was quite the opposite of this misunderstanding and misinterpretation”.

On the topic of terminology, where I am based, in the UK, the term “sanctions” is predominantly understood in the formal sense. For instance, it can be the punishments levied on another country, or the penalties (in the form of benefits – or welfare – sanctions) imposed on people who are seen not to meet requirements for being a claimant of benefits from the government. Further, if we really consider language, sanction has opposite meanings – it can be an approval or a punishment. Hence, “whilst drug use might be sanctioned by law (and therefore made illegal), it might be sanctioned (as in approved of) or even promoted in the social group/s in which each individual person moves” (Twinley & Castro de Jong, 2020, p. 24).

For reasons such as these, I feel it is nether appropriate nor fitting to position an occupation along any kind of sanctioned/non-sanctioned continuum – especially because the very use of this language (or terminology) places normative limits, which I suggest can lead to a more positive/negative binary understanding of occupations. As a challenge to this terminological debate, Castro de Jong and I (2020, p. 24) felt that:

sanctioned and nonsanctioned denotes that occupations either comply, or not, with social norms and formal or informal forces of control. By their very nature, occupations defy categorisation and are idiosyncratic; they cannot, therefore, be subject to binary interpretations. Understanding occupations within context is crucial – influencing this consideration by introducing language that places restrictions on understanding is limiting.

Not a question of sides

The dark side of occupation is not another way in which to categorise occupations. Putting people, things, or occupations into categories is something we all do and is a process through which we are unconsciously biased – making judgements in order to make sense of the world. However, when it comes to occupations, we have the ability to challenge previous judgements and categorisations. To me, considering the dark side of occupation necessitates appreciating the absolute complexity and expanse of occupations: occupations which, therefore, present a challenge to the use of traditional and limiting categorisations which also have global inapplicability.

I am unique; you are unique. My subjective experience of occupation is just that – subjective and unique; so is yours. I cannot be put into a category; you cannot be put into a category. Why then should our occupations? Understandably, this can be useful in order to achieve focus or to offer accessible examples and descriptions in practice, or when students are learning about occupation. Nevertheless, with an increasing body of research about the array of occupations, our theory is evolving and so, therefore, should practice and education.

In 2013, I expressed how the fact that occupations are so complex means they cannot be separated into two sides, or neatly fitted into a certain category.

Use of the term “dark side” is not intended to portray occupation as having two sides. As the definition and understanding of occupation has evolved, the great majority of accounts do now assert that occupation is something that is complex and multidimensional. It is certainly not something that can be divided into this side and that.

(Twinley, 2013, p. 302)

Being human: subjectivity, emotions, affect, and critical consciousness

Just as a person subjectively perceives and understands occupations and the world, so do they when it comes to learning new facts, evidence, concepts, and theories. Social psychological theory has affirmed that emotions (as the observable presentation of how a person feels) and affect (as the non-conscious experience of intensity that facilitates people to feel their feelings) saturate our lives, shape our thinking and behaviour, and influence our social interactions and connections (Twinley, 2016; van Kleef, Cheshin, Fischer, & Schneider, 2016). How we feel about what we hear, or see, or read, learn, process, and experience is significantly influenced by emotion and our ever-changing emotional states (Tyng, Amin, Saad, & Malik, 2017). In consideration of this, I have come to appreciate how the dark side of occupation is a concept which can and does have different meanings to different people; this is usually based upon factors such as their personal or professional experiences and interests, and it is always influenced by their own subjectivity, emotions, and affect as individuals and as unique human beings. I suggest it is necessary for each of us to be critically conscious, meaning that when striving for social and occupational justice, we engage in critical self-reflection. This does “not mean a singular focus on the self, but a stepping back to understand one’s own assumptions, biases, and values, and a shifting of one’s gaze from self to others and conditions of injustice in the world” (Kumagai & Lypson, 2009, p. 783).

By way of illustrating the differing ways people can respond to stimulus (in this case, in the form of a concept), I share some people’s responses, expressed through the medium of art. First, an occupational therapist and artist called Susan Windeatt kindly granted me permission to present her artistic interpretation of my concept (Figure 1.1). As you can see, Susan expressed her understanding of the dark side of occupation as the things people need, want, or perceive they have to do, and that have the potential for harmful consequences.

Figure 1.1 Interpreting the dark side of occupation.

Source: Susan Windeatt.

The second artistic expression (Figure 1.2) shared with me was by the creator of the Occupied Podcast, Brock Cook, and Occupational Therapist and contributor to this book, Clarissa Sørlie. In an email to me, Brock wrote to explain what their image represents to him:

The Dark Side of Occupation has always drawn correlations for me with Pink Floyd’s 1973 seminal album of a similar name. At the time Pink Floyd took a fairly standard arrangement of instruments and created with them a sound no one on earth had heard before....