Guest Column on Alexi Pappas' Memoir Bravey: How Bravey Could Have Been Braver

This impetus to change the language of suicide began ostensibly in the bereavement community. In addition to the insensitive language used to describe suicide, silence and denial – the absence of suicide language and conversation – was also targeted as a pernicious and major contributor to the stigma. “When a tragedy is not spoken of openly there can be no true sympathy, sharing or healing,” and “Suicide leaves the bereaved with especially acute feelings of self-denigration and self-recrimination” (Sommer – Rottenburg, p.240). Those who are left behind feel the full burden of suicide’s stigma, and others often steer clear of suicide survivors to avoid the “contamination” of suicide association. The bereaved can feel abandoned and ashamed, and adding to this injury is the mention of suicide in euphemistic, obituary-type language that goes to great lengths to whitewash any moral stain there might be to a particular death. Because this silence can be debilitating, the need for language that addresses the act of suicide in a direct but respectful way was identified and has, in recent years, gathered momentum.

In 2005 the Alberta Mental Health Board began a campaign as part of their provincial suicide prevention strategy, that addressed the language of suicide and, subsequently, offered preferred alternatives to the standard phrases.

They recommend the replacement of phrases such as “completed” or “committed suicide” with the more neutral, if blunt, “death by suicide”, “died by suicide” and “suicide.”

The Power of Words

Language matters when discussing issues of suicide; language reflects our attitudes and influences our attitudes and the attitudes of others. Words have power; words matter. The language we choose is an indicator of social injustice and has the power to shape our ideas and feelings in very insidious ways.

Phrases To Describe Suicide

For example, the phrase "committed suicide" is frowned on because it harks back to an era when suicide was considered a sin or a crime. Think about the times when we use the word "commit": "commit adultery" or "commit murder." Similarly, "successful suicide" or "unsuccessful attempt" are considered poor choices because they connote an achievement or something positive even though they result in tragic outcomes.

Putting People First

Likewise, using "suicide" as a noun to describe a person ("the suicide was wheeled into the morgue") is considered dehumanizing and reductionist. When we identify a person solely by his or her mental illness ("He is bipolar."), we have diminished that individual's wholeness. We wouldn't say, "He was a heart attack." Instead, we need to define a person by his or her life, not the manner of death, and say, "He was a person who died of suicide; he also loved to play golf, brew beer, and climb mountains." Or: "She is a teacher, writer, and animal lover who lives with a bipolar condition." So, let's put people first and focus on their resilience. Instead of "suicide attempter," we can say "they are a person who has lived through a suicide attempt."

The litmus test for talking about suicide is to substitute the word "cancer" for the word "suicide" to see if the sentence still makes sense or if it has a negative connotation. We wouldn't say "committed cancer" or "successful cancer"—we would simply say "cancer death" or "died of cancer." Thus, when it comes to suicide, we should say "suicide death" or "died of suicide."

We should also be wary of assuming intent when we use the phrases "cry for help" or "suicide gesture." This line of thinking can be a slippery slope. Instead of dismissing these suicidal behaviors as not serious, we should lean in and better understand what function they are serving in a person's life. Perhaps, we can get that need met in another way.

"Suicide Is Selfish"

In his book Myths about Suicide, Dr. Thomas Joiner goes to great lengths to dispute this common narrative of suicide as a selfish act. While it may appear that those who die of suicide are not taking into consideration the impact that their death will have on loved ones, there is much evidence to the contrary. The mind of a suicidal person is distorted and often holds the belief that he or she will be lessening their burden on loved ones by no longer being around. Avoid using this type of storyline.

"It Was His Choice"

The idea of choice or free will is often discouraged when talking about suicide because thinking is often very impaired at the time of death. Sometimes individuals who are in the throes of unimaginable emotional pain are not entirely competent to make a rational decision because their depression, addiction, or other mental health condition often prevents them from generating alternative solutions to their problems? Many people I have interviewed who have survived a very intense suicide crisis report that they have experienced something akin to command hallucinations right before they attempted—voices inside their heads telling them to kill themselves.

At an American Association of Suicidology conference, Donna Schuurman challenged the audience to look up definitions of suicide. So I did. Merriam-Webster2 defines it as "the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally."

The concept of "choice" is confusing because, while we never have direct access to the inner workings of a mind of someone who has died by suicide, there is much evidence that the thought processes are often gravely disordered by the effects of trauma, mental health conditions, and substance abuse. If a person can't choose rationally due to impairment of the mind, the decision is not a choice.

The concept of "choice" is especially confusing to those bereaved by suicide. On the one hand, survivors of suicide loss who tried to keep their loved ones alive over time find the notion comforting; even though they did all they could to prolong life, the final "decision" ultimately rested with the suicidal individual. On the other hand, survivors of suicide loss sometimes cannot fathom why their loved ones would choose death over love or the possibility of a better life.

Language Describing Suicidal Behavior

The language of suicide is expressed differently by various generations, genders, and ethnicities. The Maine Suicide Prevention Program describes suicide-related behaviors as any potentially self-injurious behavior for which evidence indicates the person intended to kill him/herself or wished to convey the appearance of intending suicide for some other reason, such as punishing others or receiving attention.

Suicide is defined as someone taking his or her own life with conscious intent by lethal means such as, a firearm, poisoning, suffocation or other self injury.

The term “committed suicide” implies a level of criminality while “completed suicide” implies earlier attempts when there may have been none. Both terms (committed and completed) perpetuate the stigma associated with suicide and are strongly discouraged. Using the word “successful” or “failed” to describe suicide is also discouraged, “died by suicide” or “died of suicide” as well as "suicide death" and "fatal suicide behavior" is recommended. Sensitive use of suicide related language is appreciated.

It is important to understand that suicidal behaviors occur on a continuum. The behaviors listed below reflect increasing intensity of suicidal behavior as it progresses from risky behavior to a death by suicide.

According to Fairbairn in his philosophical study of suicide published in 1995, "The most common way of speaking about suicide is to talk of its being 'committed'."[9] An article published in 2011 stated that, although "committed suicide" or similar descriptions continued to be the norm in the English language, the phrase "committed" associates death by suicide, or more accurately, death by mental illness, with criminal or sinful actions.[10] For example, when someone dies by cancer, it is not the norm to say the person "committed" cancer. Research has pointed out that this phrasing has become so entrenched in English vocabulary that it has gained "a naturalness which implies a deceptive harmlessness."[10] Per reportingonsuicide.org, "Certain phrases and words can further stigmatize suicide, spread myths, and undermine suicide prevention objectives such as 'committed suicide' or referring to suicide as 'successful,' 'unsuccessful' or a 'failed attempt.' Instead use, 'died by suicide",[11] 'died from suicide', 'died from/by mental illness,' 'suicided,' or 'died from/by _________ (the mental illness from which the victim suffered i.e. PTSD:Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Schizophrenia).'

While common, Lebacqz & Englehardt argue that referring to suicide as an act "committed" is hazardous to ethical clarity.[12] Others have also argued in favour of alternative language regarding suicide, both in the interest of moral and ethical precision,[13][14] as well as scientific and clinical clarity.[2][4] A United States Navy report urges against the use of the term "committed suicide" on similar grounds, asserting that "suicide is better understood when framed objectively within the context of behavioral health."[15]

The lack of clarity in English suicide terminology has been attributed to the connotations of crime, dishonour, and sin that suicide may carry.[16][17] The German term Selbstmord begehen is similar, denoting an act of commission.[14] Common language has been described as "[portraying] suicide as a 'crime' to be 'committed' as is, for example, murder."[12] This is despite the fact that suicide is largely no longer a crime,[13][18] and that, as noted suicidologist Samuel Wallace wrote, "all suicide is neither abhorrent nor not; insane or not; selfish or not; rational or not; justifiable or not."[19]

Canadian suicide prevention activist, P. Bonny Ball, commented that the alleged criminal implications of suicide are a carryover from the Middle Ages when suicide was considered "both illegal and sinful by the laws and religions of the time."[20] Sommer-Rotenberg had similarly argued that "the act of self-killing was considered criminal because it was perceived as transgressing the moral authority of God and the righteous feelings of humankind."[14]

Since "committing suicide" was akin to committing murder or rape, it has been argued that they continue to be linked in some languages.[10] However, this common English expression is not universal: "By contrast the French se suicider and the Italian uccidersi are reflexive. Likewise in Hebrew: l'hit'abbed, 'to self-destroy,' is something one does to oneself, with no implication of criminality"[14] and translates in meaning most closesly to "suicided."

Various alternatives have been proposed to alter the language regarding the act of suicide from a variety of sectors – including government, journalism, community mental health advocates, and the scientific community. Terms such as "death by suicide" have been suggested to be more objective.[15] The World Health Organization has agreed that these terms "are more accurate and less open to misinterpretation."[21]

As it applies to a direct clinical context, the widely cited Beck Classification of Suicidal Behaviour exclusively uses the terminology of "complete suicide."[22] This classification was revisited in a number of notable documents (such as the Operational Classification for Determination of Suicide, the 'Tower of Babel' nomenclature, the WHO/EURO definitions, the Columbia University suicidality classification, the CDC self-directed violence surveillance system, and the Denver VA VISN 19 MIRECC self-directed violence classification system).[23]

Advocacy groups have suggested a variety of guidelines for suicide terminology.[24][25][26][27][28][29] As it concerns media reporting of suicide, a key indicator of guideline influence on language as it is practiced in that context reports including one by the Annenberg School for Communication's Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania suggests that there is "evidence of a change in reporting practices following the release of the new media guidelines".[30]

Preferred language

People who are vulnerable to suicide, or bereaved by suicide, can be particularly impacted by language. Below is a summary of preferred language to use when communicating about suicide.

Do say Don’t say Why?

‘non-fatal’ or ‘made an attempt on his/her life’ ‘unsuccessful suicide’ To avoid presenting suicide as a desired outcome or glamourising a suicide attempt.

‘took their own life’, ‘died by suicide’ or ‘ended their own life’ ‘successful suicide’ To avoid presenting suicide as a desired outcome.

‘died by suicide’ or ‘ended his/ her own life ‘committed’ or ‘commit suicide’ To avoid association between suicide and ‘crime’ or ‘sin’ that may alienate some people.

‘concerning rates of suicide’ ‘suicide epidemic’ To avoid sensationalism and inaccuracy.

We need to ensure we are not “too afraid” to talk about suicide as a community, while respecting and understanding the risks in certain situations.

The guest columnist Kate doesn't seem to appreciate that her column reads as highly judgmental of Alexi Pappas. The passing complements at the front and back end of the hit piece are so clearly self defense by the author, anticipating that she'll be called out for being so critical of a popular athlete. Kate's entitled to her opinion (which I think is overly aggressive given pretty thin empirical work on these language issues), and I have no problem with her sharing those views in the forum. Frankly the column reads like a forum post. I mean that as a complement to the quality of some forum posts - it's one of the reasons that the forum on this site is worth visiting. It's not all trolling and childish bickering. People on the messageboard can have interesting, thoughtful things to say, and controversial topics shouldn't be off limits on the messageboard.

My issue is with the decision by Letsrun to present what should be a forum post as a guest column. I don't see this opinion as the kind of journalism Letsrun should be promoting or putting its name behind (which is how it comes off, even though some of the Letsrun brass disagree with some of the columnist's views on the messageboard). I think it's an incredibly poor choice of Letsrun to give prominence to the opinions of a random fan of the site when the fan's thesis is criticism of a few words in open and honest memoir from a prominent professional runner. While it's fine to allow discussion and debate, I think promoting this targeted attack on a few word choices by a pro athlete in her memoir does a serious disservice to the community we're a part of as runners and fans. I think of running as a supportive community that brings together people who share a passion for this pure, raw, wonderful sport. If another prominent professional athlete were to have written this narrow opinion piece on a memoir by a pro I'd probably be fine with Letsrun promoting it. But promoting this random fan's mediocre piece really feels like an unfair way to bring negativity to our sport in an already difficult time. It also could make professionals (many visit this site) feel more uncomfortable sharing openly and honestly the way Alexi did. I don't like this decision by Letsrun, and I hope the folks running this place pause before doing anything like this again. Let's try to find more ways to be positive and supportive of our pros. We're a year into this pandemic. It sucks. Nobody likes it. We're all suffering. Let's run. Let's also be nice to each other. And not just in platitudes like this columnist.

Seeking advice from an HRC-brand "feminist" for the female perspectives you were deprived of in school is not only illogical and sophomoric, it's arguably misogynist. Are you supposing every woman thinks like a Hillary feminist?

In PC speak that could be called tokenization. Instead of trying to find out what all the women think, you found a cartoon woman supposedly credentialed to represent them all.

High Fidelity wrote:

rojo wrote:

I'm finding this thread to be very educational and plan on readin the links people have provided (haven't had time yet), but am glad people like yourself have posted comments like yours in defense of my instinctual (but admittedly non researched ) ake).

The death by suicide language to me is nicer to those that are dead (and their friends and family that are grieving), but insulting to those struggling with the suicidal thoughts themselves. To me, it denies you of your agency in your own life. I'm more interested in preventing one future suicide than helping people feel better about ones that have already happened.

It’s ignorant and insulting to think the term “death by suicide” causes suicide. Watch your mouth

Language is an expression of ideas and freedom of thought is the underpinning of a functional democracy. You are not a censor, this is a forum. At the root of all this bloviating is Alexi's description of her mother's death. Only a real buttwipe would deny her the right to describe that event as she experienced it. Every week, I am in meetings with people that struggle with depression. On a regular basis, they discuss the possibility or the experience of "wanting to kill" themselves. That's a fact. That's people calling something what it is. You may have a different term for it and that's your right but leave other people alone.

I mean it's a just critical literary analysis. The reviewer overall liked the book but found a few things that could be improved or tweaked. It's really not that critical, just a way to spur a conversation. In fact, I actually learned a few things from the reviewer and those that have offered thoughtful posts.

Have you attended college or perhaps even written a critique of a piece of literature in high school? This is a similar type of piece. I didn't find it overly judgmental or aggressive, just a critical analysis. It was way more interesting and thoughtful than most of the nonsense you cite on this message board.

.[/quote]

Educate yourself

https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/suicideandlanguage/[/quote

]

——————

This is exactly the problem. People without in-depth knowledge of issues Google a word, then puppet the talking points of advocacy groups.

Surely there is a relationship between words, behavior, and social values. However, there is no compelling evidence that language choice impacts suicide rates. Even if there was evidence of harm, banning particular words would likely do greater harm than the actual words do.

Imagine living in a world where people in despair couldn’t utter the phrase, “I want to kill myself.” I worked with chronically mentally ill adults, and I can assure you they say much worse things than this.

All of this language policing is sinister, but it’s being carried out by people who sincerely believe that they have the moral high ground. Read “Politics and the English Language” by George Orwell. The brain can so easily be populated by fashionable phrases and metaphors that people confuse even themselves while thinking they’re making a point. Words do matter, which is why people should carefully choose them to convey meaning accurately rather than succumb to right-speak.

sub sub elite local hobby jogger wrote:

I mean it's a just critical literary analysis. The reviewer overall liked the book but found a few things that could be improved or tweaked. It's really not that critical, just a way to spur a conversation. In fact, I actually learned a few things from the reviewer and those that have offered thoughtful posts.

Have you attended college or perhaps even written a critique of a piece of literature in high school? This is a similar type of piece. I didn't find it overly judgmental or aggressive, just a critical analysis. It was way more interesting and thoughtful than most of the nonsense you cite on this message board.

This isn't exactly true because it is a memoir. Additionally, the critiques are probably unknown issues to 90% of the US population. Raphael writes this critique as if these were intentional choices by Pappas to undermine mental illness, sexuality, and female sexual pleasure. By calling Pappas to be "braver" and additionally using the word "language" to describe Pappas' choices, Raphael makes it clear that she believes Pappas has intentionally chosen these words.

I believe that Pappas has chosen these words because this is her voice. This is her diction. They were not chosen beyond the simple reason of expressing her thoughts. If you were to write a critique of this, you would write about what Pappas' choices say about her. Maybe she still has unresolved feelings about her mothers death. Maybe she still has shame for her original sexual experiences. Maybe she does still see sex for females as simply a way to please the opposite sex. Those would be the themes you would look at.

Raphael chooses instead to attack Pappas for not being brave. I find nothing braver in this world than bearing yourself to it scars and all as Pappas has done here.

GD wrote:

.

Educate yourself

]

——————

This is exactly the problem. People without in-depth knowledge of issues Google a word, then puppet the talking points of advocacy groups.

Surely there is a relationship between words, behavior, and social values. However, there is no compelling evidence that language choice impacts suicide rates. Even if there was evidence of harm, banning particular words would likely do greater harm than the actual words do.

Imagine living in a world where people in despair couldn’t utter the phrase, “I want to kill myself.” I worked with chronically mentally ill adults, and I can assure you they say much worse things than this.

All of this language policing is sinister, but it’s being carried out by people who sincerely believe that they have the moral high ground. Read “Politics and the English Language” by George Orwell. The brain can so easily be populated by fashionable phrases and metaphors that people confuse even themselves while thinking they’re making a point. Words do matter, which is why people should carefully choose them to convey meaning accurately rather than succumb to right-speak.[/quote]

Funny you accusing me of language policing, when Rojo was the one to language police by implying that the term death by suicide CAUSES suicide and that graphic depictions of someones suicide helps to prevent suicide. When all evidence points to the contrary.

And this is after I shared my story of my friend dying by suicide. Who is a combat veteran and bronze star recipient, by the way. And an all American D3 runner in college.

“The persistent use of suicidal self-directed violence terminology inconsistent with proffered universal nomenclature carries with it several additional concerns. First and foremost, utilization of nonuniversal suicidal self-directed violence terminology enables, or superficially makes okay, the use of such phrases within clinical, research, and public health settings. Of course, such language is then all the more likely to feature in the popular discourse among the general population. This sets up a cycle of continued use whereby mental health professionals, media, and lay persons mutually influence one another, normalizing terms and phrases that are inherently biased, vague, and at times detrimental to patients’ treatment engagement and recovery.”

How is that?

alizahannah wrote:

How is that?

How is what?

really is astonishing how deeply people want to dictate how people talk, even about their own personal life.

I understand that the woke crew's motivation is to help people, but dictating how artists write and what words they can use and how to tell their personal stories...is really a bad idea.