Our discussion in class the other day about the ethics of writing about mental illnesses reminded me of this Vice article that I had read a few months back. The author, an anonymous observer, writes about his experience with his girlfriend who has Dissociative Identity Disorder (which we surmised is what may be happening to Albert in Casey’s novel). Although this article is allegedly non-fiction, it’s hard to say if it truly is or not because of the writer’s anonymity and the medium that was used. For the purpose of our class, let’s assume that it is a subjective (not necessarily fictional) account based on a true event. How do you feel about this article? Do you think it’s okay for the author to tell the internet world about his girlfriend’s disorder when he clearly mentions that she’s only told a select few about it? Does the anonymity justify his story? Or does the fact that this Vice article brought attention and awareness to a little known disorder outweigh the cons?
Concerning the class discussion regarding the ethics of writing a neuroatypical narrative by an author who has no personal experience with that form of ND, I feel like there are a few things I consider when evaluating the moral ok-ness of said text. Some important factors I’ll consider are what claims the text makes and/or how it is marketed. For instance, does the text claim to be an “authentic” portrayal of an ND experience? (Any form of fiction [and even nonfiction] that might answer “yes” to that question would raise a red flag for me.) Or is the text an egregious exploitation of an ND experience, as if it’s only marketed to sell/pander to some kind of book fad? (Note: I acknowledge that any kind of publishing for profit is a kind of exploitation, but I think something marketed with something cheesy like “Meet the next Rain Man” [I made that up, but I feel like it exists] or writing a story about an autistic person because it’s the “it” thing of the moment would produce a knee-jerk irk from me.)
As for the Vice article, I’m somewhat perturbed by it. The anonymity thing bothers me because I instinctively don’t trust anonymous sources as much, despite the fact that the writer probably wants to protect the woman he is writing about. But then another bothersome question is raised in that this is the someone else’s experience/story/secret that he is essentially telling, which is where most of my discomfort comes from. I think the story is fairly well-written and I get the idea of raising awareness about something that is misunderstood, but I cringe a bit because it still feels like an invasion of privacy to the person that is being written about (and I wonder if he got her permission to write and publish the article, to which I’m guessing he didn’t).
At first, I saw nothing wrong with the article; it was published anonymously and I believe the names were changed to protect the privacy for the people being talked about. But Micheal’s point about invasion of privacy swayed my opinion a bit. Her private life is being exposed through the writer’s personal narrative. Even though it is his phenomenology of the event, the event is directly linked to her life and her disorder.
The fact that Vice brought attention and awareness to this disorder (which IS really unexplored) does not justify the invasion of privacy the woman experienced/is experiencing.