A sociological theory of mental illness

Abdul

Today we live in a world of representations. Just take a look at any modern, developed city: big images, vivid and oversaturated colors, lots of advertising, instant gratification. A world of images mediated by people. It has reached such an apex that this has affected the real of the individual in such a way that he also becomes a representation for himself, an image, an abstract, and this is the fundamental basis of all psychoanalysis.
In psychoanalysis the person in the present, in the session, is an abstraction of the person in the past, all his feelings, thoughts and emotions are inductive, and so existence itself carries this thick layer of abstraction by which nothing is really felt or understood except as a relation of the notion he, the person, has of himself and the discrepancy between that and what he thinks he ought to realize.

In a sense, he is reduced to an abstraction that destroys at the root his sense of intuition and self-confidence and reduces him to the mere level of affects and deterministic behavior.

Thus, in a world mediated by images, he is reduced to the lowest level: an affect.

Most people are quite sane and therefore very capable and totally self-sufficient. But by increasing the distance between your intuition and your experience of the world, we destroy the tools you need to be self-sufficient.
Most people are healthy and therefore are not, as is commonly thought, a product of their past or of a mental condition that inhibits them from self-realization. The very idea of assuming oneself to be something that needs to be "fixed" or "corrected" is the disease of the modern world of abstractions.

What I find particularly interesting is the choice of language; words [...] have reached such a pernicious level of influence that they have no real or useful clinical meaning. We are all a bit narcissistic and lonely but not by virtue of our past, but by virtue of the collective. What does the invention of the automobile do for a society? It creates roads, highways, interstate travel, connects, yes, but also distance.

And it is precisely this distance (sociological and moral) that cuts people off at the knees. The addict is a victim of his addiction, but he is also fully responsible and knows it. Otherwise, he could have taken his own life, condemned to vice and mediocrity. But he does not do so, precisely because above the fear [of death] he still carries the core of hope, indispensable for every change and every nature of self-sufficiency. He is not a victim of vice, but of his own responsibility.

And it is precisely this weight that drags him to his pacifying behaviors, which we, for lack of empathy simply label as pathological. It is this vice that I detest so much that turns people into a means of psychological self-satisfaction and mental masturbation.

But this is a symptom of a much bigger problem; just as it is for the addict, so it is for society. The lack of religion has turned scientific progress into a cult, based not on empiricism, but on skepticism. That is to say: distrust. That is why it is indispensable for members of Alcoholics Anonymous to adopt the step of faith in a higher power. Most people are born into a lack of resilience, so this faith centers their spiritual energy outside themselves, that is, it is transcendental and frees them from the yoke of their immanence.

Precisely this very faith they place in Christ is an abstraction of the willpower they initially placed in themselves at the moment they came to their first encounter.

Their self-confidence has escaped the pressures of the will and has taken on a more sublimated form, free from necessity and precisely free from the world of images and abstractions to which their very human essence had been subjected.

What most people need, therefore, is not to be fixed, but to be understood. And it starts by attacking the very institutions of Freudianism and the very arrogance and vileness that stinks so much even in their own physiognomy. His attitude is a cancer to that people who struggle with real and palpable problems in the present and not in some distant fixed trauma of the past that if people knew about, would only be as strong as any other memory.

I like sushi

What is your theory? Are you a Christian Believer?

unenlightened

↪Abdul

I commend to you the writing of David Smail, and particularly his book "The Origins of Unhappiness".

Meanwhile, I will take issue with this.

Most people are quite sane and therefore very capable and totally self-sufficient. — Abdul

Most people are pretty fucked up and miserable, and no one at all is self sufficient. Just in order to communicate this message to you, for example, I require a whole army of assistants to nurse my infant self, teach me to read and write, put food on the table and a roof over my head and construct a communications network and this electronic device on which I am typing. None of this would I be remotely capable of doing on my own. Not to mention your own self that has been the provocation of my current thoughts.

Self-sufficiency is a dangerous fantasy, that is widely promoted, with false corollary that to fail to be (in the imagination) self sufficient is an illness and a loss of contact with reality.

ToothyMaw

↪unenlightened

:100:

Agreed. But surely people exist on a spectrum of self-sufficiency, especially once they reach adulthood? I mean we could give "self-sufficiency" a stipulative definition of, say, "the degree to which one can currently maintain oneself absent outside aid", as opposed to the commonly held definition of total self-sufficiency? You would agree that the less aid you receive and the more you manage to sustain yourself independently, the more self-sufficient you are, right? Even if you are not totally self-sufficient?

Abdul

↪I like sushi

I have no theory, I only propose that psychoanalysis has done more wrong for the average person and it shouldn't be a first place resource except for those who need it. People can overcome more things than they believe they can, but our market economy makes them a product or a means and not a participant of their own well-being.

Philosophim

I like your points except the need for religion. I believe at this point in life that religion is a mental construct we use to deal with things in life that have no alternative solution. Just like "everyone thinks they're above average". Of course not everyone is above average, that's not how math works. But thinking that you are helps you make it through the world.

I do think religion can be very helpful to people, but not for this particular solution. As you noted,

words [...] have reached such a pernicious level of influence that they have no real or useful clinical meaning. — Abdul

Exactly. I see it on social media and culture. "I have OCD". No you don't. OCD is a crippling compulsion that is in no way reasonable. Do you wash your hands 10 minutes every day on the dot to the point your hands are bleeding and raw? Then you don't have OCD. You have an attention to detail, order, and habit, which is part of the human spectrum.

The problem is medicalized terms that represent crippling deficiencies, have been relegated to personality differences that people are uncomfortable with. The psychology industry makes bank off of it, and well meaning psychologists are trying to make people's lives better. Being sad is not depression. Not moving from your bed for hours after you wake up is. Popular culture looks for what is wrong with us, when it should be celebrating our differences.

Compound this with a for-profit medicalized industry, and we're marketing pills to people who are quite healthy, have no problems working and taking care of themselves, but are sold a magic pill to "make life better". This especially hits the youth hard. You have teenagers dealing with normal stresses and fears and thinking its "anxiety". A diagnosis becomes an excuse for poor behavior that you could easily overcome. Its definitely a problem.

The psychology industry has people who understand this as well. They want psychology to emphasize less what is wrong with people, and more what is right. As long as there is money to be made however, and people are more willing to look for an excuse for what's wrong with them instead of accepting that life is going to have struggles you have to overcome yourself, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

unenlightened

You would agree that the less aid you receive and the more you manage to sustain yourself independently, the more self-sufficient you are, right? Even if you are not totally self-sufficient? — ToothyMaw

Sure. If you don't use the roads, or the shops, or the internet, or oil products, or imports, etc, you can come close to self-sufficiency (neglecting your total dependence on the environment).

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. — Karl Sagan

Tom Storm

I have no theory, I only propose that psychoanalysis has done more wrong for the average person and it shouldn't be a first place resource except for those who need it. — Abdul

Psychiatry isn't psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is a very old fashioned approach, practiced by a handful of boutique, middle-class therapists.

For the most part psychiatry is built around the client's needs, around robust diagnostic criteria.

Your concern is perhaps more about the wellness and psychology industries that are not generally connected to psychiatry and are closer to Oprah Winfrey than Freud.

Like religion, which says we are all sinners who need god to be saved, psychology can sometimes fall into the trap of saying we are all bungled and need insight through treatment.

This is a very complex field, full of great and some terrible work. The psychiatrists I have worked with over the past 30 years (in public mental health) generally dislike psychology and are not especially tolerant of the self-help industry. They would rather people develop their own skills and resilience than make them dependent upon theories or ongoing counselling.

Psychiatry is of course poorly understood and one of the great bogeymen of popular culture and many people are incapable of considering the subject rationally ( also like religion) There have been some spectacular examples of poor practice and oppression from some sections of the mental health community, as there have been in many professions.

Most people are quite sane and therefore very capable and totally self-sufficient. But by increasing the distance between your intuition and your experience of the world, we destroy the tools you need to be self-sufficient.
Most people are healthy and therefore are not, as is commonly thought, a product of their past or of a mental condition that inhibits them from self-realization. The very idea of assuming oneself to be something that needs to be "fixed" or "corrected" is the disease of the modern world of abstractions — Abdul

Most psychiatrists I have worked with would agree with you that most people do not require their help or any treatment.

180 Proof

Like religion, which says we are all sinners who need god to be saved, psychology can sometimes fall into the trap of saying we are all bungled and need insight through treatment. — Tom Storm

:up: It seems to me, (Abrahamic / Dharmic) religions are just Bronze Age variations on psychoanalysis memorialized in Iron Age manuals and rituals.

↪Abdul

kindred

Mental illnesses are diverse from schizophrenia to addictions and despite the progress of psychology remain largely misunderstood.

There are physiological differences between different brains and how they’re wired but at the same time all human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and as such the choice of treatment whether it be therapy or medication should remain with the individual rather than the state unless of course such an individual has committed a crime in which case it’s up to the justice system to deal with.

Life is hard, no doubt and we all face different problems and challenges in our day to day lives and individuals have different capacities for handling the problems that life can present depending on the level of resilience each person posses they may sometimes need help from others.

I think disorders of the mind are purely cognitive rather than physiological because thought is intangible which means that modern medicine when it comes to treating such disorders largely fails as they mostly have a sedative effect and turn individuals into docile zombies rather than cure anything.

For the most part psychiatry is built around the client's needs, around robust diagnostic criteria. — Tom Storm

I think this is the main issue, diagnosis, which presents a problem because we cannot access the patients brain to see how they think but we infer from dialogue and observation which brings in an element of subjectivity and possibly bias.

The psychology industry has people who understand this as well. They want psychology to emphasize less what is wrong with people, and more what is right. As long as there is money to be made however, and people are more willing to look for an excuse for what's wrong with them instead of accepting that life is going to have struggles you have to overcome yourself, I don't see it changing anytime soon — Philosophim

The real issue with psychology is that it tries to treat non-organic problems organically that is through medication rather than other more reliable methods such as CBT for example. It makes too many assumptions about the workings of the brain by trying to simplify it. Mental health problems are not located in the brain but in how we think which is purely cognitive. In doing so psychiatry/psychology does more harm then good, neuroscience is in its infancy barely able to understand what gives rise to consciousness let alone provide any practical solutions to mental illnesses.

Im not sure whether having faith in God helps this matter but I don’t think human beings have the right to meddle with another human beings brain through well meaning medication because the way such medicines work is not by altering thought procceses at all but mostly alter brain chemistry via sedation.

On the issue of religion if it provides comfort and relief and strength to individuals experiencing mental unhealth then I’m all for it but on the flip side it can also cause damage if they don’t take responsibility for their actions.

tim wood

Psychiatry is of course poorly understood and one of the great bogeymen of popular culture and many people are incapable of considering the subject rationally ( also like religion) — Tom Storm

Spoken like a true kool-aid drinker. Question: as you've worked with psychiatrists, you must know what they do: what, exactly, do psychiatrists do? If I pay for the services of a psychiatrist, what, mainly, can I expect to get?

Tom Storm

Spoken like a true kool-aid drinker — tim wood

many people are incapable of considering the subject rationally — Tom Storm

Are you trying to make my point for me? :wink:

If I pay for the services of a psychiatrist, what, mainly, can I expect to get? — tim wood

Not the most useful question - rhetorical and disingenuous I assume, given the kool-aid smear? Wouldn't it depend upon your reason and the context for engaging a psychiatrist? If you are experiencing psychosis or delusions or bulimia, or suicidal ideation or acute paranoia or chronic addiction, or if you're trying to cope with a physical decline alongside a terminal illness, you might need one to help diagnose, treat and support the management of your issue.

Maybe you're more curious about psychiatrists in private practice who provide counselling or psychotherapy (analytic or otherwise) to wealthy neurotics? There's plenty of shit on the internet about that, good and bad.

tim wood

Are you trying to make my point for me? — Tom Storm

Nope, you've made it yourself, and the analogy with religion is telling.

If I understand your answer, it is that a psychiatrist, encountering behavior, using the DSM-V or something like, makes a diagnosis - provides a label - and then.... And then what? I'm asking because I do not know.

If you detect an odor of something Socratic in my question, you'd be right. And I suppose the test of your answer for my purposes is that given your answer absent my question, a person could be expected to understand that it was a psychiatrist whose actions you were describing, and not, e.g., an orthopedist or an oncologist or even a bookkeeper.

unenlightened

Spoken like a true kool-aid drinker. Question: as you've worked with psychiatrists, you must know what they do: what, exactly, do psychiatrists do? If I pay for the services of a psychiatrist, what, mainly, can I expect to get? — tim wood

You get, in most circumstances, "the medical model". This consists of a history, interpreted by the expert to form a diagnosis, followed by a recommendation of treatment.

The medical model is what this thread is questioning, and suggesting be replaced with a sociological model, such that mental distress arises from a person's relationships, to the environment and particularly to significant others and various 'authorities'. One of those relationships is that between the person and the psychiatrist. One can look at the power relations involved and consider what about the relationship might tend to confirm or disconfirm the person's feelings of distress - of, for random example, persecution.

tim wood

↪unenlightened

Go to an auto mechanic and the expectation is that he, or she, will fix your car. That is, a well-defined problem being identified, the mechanic's expertise will be directed at that and to its remedy. Similarly with most medical specialties. Broken bone? X-ray, treatment with best practices, and you're almost as good as new - maybe even better. And so forth with most physical ailments.

And a moment or two's thought will catch that none of this a psychiatrist does. What I think he or she does is, medical model, presuppose that something is wrong, then attempts to find a fit in wrongness in the DSM-V. Finding it, then treats according to the finding and according to the theory-of-the-day about the finding. Or, in a nutshell, while most doctors are concerned with the problems of their patients, psychiatrists are concerned with the problems of psychiatrists: this the underlying model.

This sounds ludicrous and impossible, but perhaps an example will suffice. A well-respected psychiatrist at a well-respected symposium reporting on a twenty-plus years' treatment of several times per week meeting with a older female diagnosed as hebephrenic, and who did not speak! That in the 70s; hebephrenia (I see) no longer a recognized diagnosis.

To be sure, there are no doubt good men and women who are psychiatrists - the original goal to alleviate the suffering of those warehoused in 19th century mental hospitals - but generally, to be any good, they have to not do psychiatry. That leaves referrals, therapy, and prescribing drugs for counselors/therapists who cannot themselves prescribe.

unenlightened

presuppose that something is wrong, then attempts to find a fit in wrongness in the DSM-V. Finding it, then treats according to the finding and according to the theory-of-the-day about the finding. — tim wood

There is definitely something wrong, that's not in dispute. The medical model is that there is something wrong with the patient; the social model is that there is something wrong between the person and their environment.
An example, Mr X goes to the doctor suffering from depression. says he hasn't been depressed before but the last year he's feeling down unmotivated. He used to be a skilled steel worker but he got laid off two years ago and hasn't been able to find a job. He feels useless, the house is about to be repossessed, his wife has left him. The social diagnosis is that he is suffering from a worldwide recession engineered by financial interests he has zero knowledge of, and what he needs is a new government. The doctor gives him sympathy and some happy pills.

tim wood

there is something wrong between — unenlightened

I invite consideration of that "between." Not looking for an argument or even a discussion, merely instead noting a pernicious aspect of it in use: that it misplaces, misdirects, and misinforms. This an old bee in my old bonnet - thank you for listening.

Leontiskos

The social diagnosis is that he is suffering from a worldwide recession engineered by financial interests he has zero knowledge of, and what he needs is a new government. — unenlightened

Founders of that tradition such as Alfred Adler would have a more nuanced take.

I think many people recognize that mental health cannot merely be reduced to a medical issue or a social issue or a psychological issue, etc. Nevertheless, paradigms for treatment remain necessary.

unenlightened

I invite consideration of that "between." — tim wood

I'm willing to consider, but where do you want me to consider redirecting?

a more nuanced take. — Leontiskos

It's a hypothetical example - nuance is to be avoided in making the distinction between the personal psychological analysis and the social relations analysis. One can of course make use of both in the real world.

Leontiskos

It's a hypothetical example - nuance is to be avoided in making the distinction between the personal psychological analysis and the social relations analysis. — unenlightened

I suppose my point is that social approaches to mental health need not be conspiracy theories. Describing social theories with the example of, "worldwide recession engineered by financial interests he has zero knowledge of," and the need of "a new government," makes it sound a lot like a conspiracy theory.

There is a lot going on in the OP. Probably too much. The social aspect is part of it, but not an especially large part.

tim wood

I'm willing to consider, but where do you want me to consider redirecting? — unenlightened

In our hypothetical, to the person feeling depressed - noting that depression and feeling depressed are not the same thing, as you likely know perfectly well. A good and possibly therapeutic question to ask those who can handle it, is something like, "The feeling you're having right now, what is it doing for you right now?"

I imagine you can follow through the implications of the question. It comes from a book about Heidegger's Being and Time.

Tom Storm

If I understand your answer, it is that a psychiatrist, encountering behavior, using the DSM-V or something like, makes a diagnosis - provides a label - and then.... And then what? I'm asking because I do not know. — tim wood

So you left out that part of the answer in your summary -

treat and support the management of your issue. — Tom Storm

Your question probably should have been, 'what does treatment and support the management, look like?'

provides a label — tim wood

Seems a bit limited to say a diagnosis is reducing people's illness to just a label. Medicine works by identifying the correct diagnosis. Doing this saves lives. There's a big difference between bi-polar disorder and depression, or between schizophrenia and autism. Having expertise in mental illness and providing the right response, saves lives. Getting medication (the type as well as the dosage) right is critical. Linking people into psychosocial support is also critical. And when all this is done appropriately, it can lead to people's recovery and full participation in community. This is no small thing.

the analogy with religion is telling. — tim wood

And what does it tell you?

To be sure, there are no doubt good men and women who are psychiatrists - the original goal to alleviate the suffering of those warehoused in 19th century mental hospitals - but generally, to be any good, they have to not do psychiatry. That leaves referrals, therapy, and prescribing drugs for counselors/therapists who cannot themselves prescribe. — tim wood

I think you are getting closer with this answer. One of the psychiatrists I work with is 'doing psychiatry' to use your term and is overseeing the treatment of around 150 people who have psychotic illnesses. This involves the ongoing support of their patient - regular medication reviews, listening to feedback, tweaking and reducing mediation dosage, accepting people's decisions if they no longer want to take medication, supporting them with ongoing psychoeducation. Through this, most of the 150 have an enhanced quality of life.

But you'd be right if you said psychiatry isn't all they need. Psychiatry is always understood as being just a part of a person's recovery. They also need supportive friends, engagement with community, employment, meaning. And I would agree with those who say that community, connection with others and meaning often play a bigger role in people becoming well than just psychiatry.

No doubt there are shonky shrinks, just as there are dubious lawyers, doctors and plumbers. Are there some who abuse power? You bet. Are there some who are complacent and lazy? Yep. I am currently involved in lobbying to get some accountability from one local area mental health service, where the local psychiatrist and his team do too little too late.

tim wood

Medicine works by identifying the correct diagnosis. Doing this saves lives. — Tom Storm

Agreed. But there's a difference between an x-ray of a broken leg and five or six or more characteristic behaviors from a list of ten.

the analogy with religion is telling.
— tim wood
And what does it tell you? — Tom Storm

That it is a matter of presuppositions and an unquestioning belief in those presuppositions. You list above, in addition to straight-up medical attention that an RN or a nurse practitioner could provide, support, listening, accepting, and again supporting. If that's what psychiatrists do, then why an MD? These are the actions of a competent counselor/therapist, which a psychiatrist might be, but is not trained to be. So it's back to the question - maybe I can refine it - not what do some psychiatrists do, but instead what exactly do psychiatrists do as psychiatrists that distinguishes them as psychiatrists?

You might answer that a psychiatrist is a person who meeting certain licensure requirements and qualifications, is authorized to take responsibility for the care of mentally ill persons. And if you did, I should have to be satisfied with that, but I think we'd both be less than satisfied with that an answer.

Leontiskos

↪tim wood

- What exactly are you disputing? This?:

There is definitely something wrong, that's not in dispute. — unenlightened

Mental illness is surely a problem, no? And how do we approach it? Psychologically, sociologically, medicinally...? You may not like the psychiatric approach to mental illness, but what alternative would you propose? Do you at least admit that mental illness represents a societal problem?

Tom Storm

You might answer that a psychiatrist is a person who meeting certain licensure requirements and qualifications, is authorized to take responsibility for the care of mentally ill persons. — tim wood

Partly right. But also has the appropriate qualifications and capacity to undertake diagnosis (which is far from straight forward) and the expertise to determine the best treatment plan and medication, which includes ongoing case reviews. They may also supervise and take clinical responsibility for the ongoing treatment provided by an entire department and review all cases. These are things that a nurse or a GP can do to some extent, but they lack expertise and will make more errors or hold erroneous assumptions. They are generalists and have gaps. I've seen that plenty of times. How do we determine, say, Korsakoff syndrome as opposed to Alzheimer's, or determine whether the person has drug induced psychoses or has schizoaffective disorder, etc. It's nuanced work. How do we treat the woman who is trying to cut the baby out of her stomach because she believes her fetus is the anti-Christ? (I've had variations of this twice) I'd rather a psychiatrist lead the treatment provision than a nurse. But a nurse will no doubt be required too. And probably police.

That it is a matter of presuppositions and an unquestioning belief in those presuppositions. — tim wood

I have not heard anyone with unquestioning beliefs in any presuppositions. I am critical of psychiatry and have been viewed as denunciatory pain in the arse many times in my community. I'm not here to suggest psychiatry is a panacea. Not everyone needs it. And there are multiple types of psychiatry (modalities) some useful, some not. And I am no expert on the subject, except for what I have seen work at first hand over many years. Essentially I made the point that psychiatry is poorly understood and demonized. No doubt there are self-styled countercultural hippy types, prancing around in the ruins of the 1960s "all-you-need-is-love" culture, who view psychiatry as a tool used by "the man" and Big Pharma to suppress dissent. We all know why that is and to some extent this has been a fair criticism in instances, but shouldn't be the only frame.

But just thinking on this now - even if there were other occupations who can sometimes do a similar job to a psychiatrist (whatever that might look like) so what? There are people, other than philosophers who can do philosophy. This doesn't mean that philosophy as an academic profession is worthless, or does nothing. There are people other than mechanics who can service my car and maintain it. Does that make mechanics superfluous? I think expertise and credentialing remain important, and we generally opt for expertise where the stakes are higher, but this is the era of denigrating expertise, so there is that. I think it's fine to be skeptical of expertise, but I know where I draw the line. Others may draw the line differently.

Tom Storm

There is a lot going on in the OP. Probably too much. — Leontiskos

That's for sure.

Mental illness is surely a problem, no? And how do we approach it? Psychologically, sociologically, medicinally...? You may not like the psychiatric approach to mental illness, but what alternative would you propose? — Leontiskos

Yes, I think this summaries the matter appropriately.

In some instances there may well be alternatives for the psychiatric approach. Many psychiatrists would be the first to say this. And this can mislead people, if they focus just on some alternatives and overlook the thorny end of metal ill health, which does appear to require medical and psychiatric intervention, not just an accepting buddy or a generic counsellor.

tim wood

You may not like the psychiatric approach to mental illness, — Leontiskos

Maybe you think the practice of psychiatry - whatever exactly that is - is like other medical practices. It isn't. Psychiatric treatment is model or theory based, which may not work for a particular patient, and may even be just plain wrong for a particular patient - my example above.

Moreover, more than a century ago - and even still today - psychiatrists had evolved a system of defense for their practices that held that critics were suffering from some pathology. So psychiatry has had a bad rep that it earned, because not knowing what it was doing and being very defensive about it. These days (I think) most psychiatrists are in the counseling/therapy business - they're neither; they're MDs - or they consult with counselors/therapists on prescribing medication. And some take on institutional responsibilities.

Being in no way a mental-health expert, but having encountered some pretty sick people, it seems to me the best treatment is holistic in approach, providing what is needed: drugs if needed; counseling/therapeutic/custodial support as needed, and likely a mix.

tim wood

which does appear to require medical and psychiatric intervention, — Tom Storm

At the risk of becoming tedious, what exactly is "psychiatric intervention"; that is, that distinguishes itself as psychiatric?

Leontiskos

Psychiatric treatment is model or theory based, which may not work for a particular patient, and may even be just plain wrong for a particular patient — tim wood

Sure, but this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Psychiatry could be the Devil himself, but even so the whole system would collapse without it. So we'll need to keep the devil around until we can figure out how to do without him. Cutting off his head will only make things worse.

You may not like the psychiatric approach to mental illness, but what alternative would you propose? — Leontiskos

it seems to me the best treatment is holistic in approach, providing what is needed: drugs if needed; counseling/therapeutic/custodial support as needed, and likely a mix. — tim wood

Okay, so you think psychiatry is too narrow of an intervention. I don't find that controversial, but I'm not sure we want the thread to devolve into an argument over psychiatry. The larger picture must be kept in mind, which is abductive. Churchill's saying about democracy could be adapted for psychiatry. If one wants to oppose psychiatry then the true task is to offer a better alternative, not to just bash psychiatry.

Tom Storm

At the risk of becoming tedious, what exactly is "psychiatric intervention"; that is, that distinguishes itself as psychiatric? — tim wood

A psychiatric intervention is where a mental illness is suspected and then assessed and diagnosed and provided with treatment options under the clinal care and recommendations of a psychiatrist.

But I'm happy to move on. We obviously hold differing frames.

it seems to me the best treatment is holistic in approach, providing what is needed: drugs if needed; counseling/therapeutic/custodial support as needed, and likely a mix. — tim wood

Yes, most psychiatrists would completely agree with this.

unenlightened

I imagine you can follow through the implications of the question. It comes from a book about Heidegger's Being and Time. — tim wood

You don't seem willing to entertain a social analysis, and at the same time seem reluctant to actually say what you mean. *shrug*

I suppose my point is that social approaches to mental health need not be conspiracy theories. — Leontiskos

It's an example. What it illustrates is that one's social condition and thereby one's psychological condition can be - as David Smail puts it - strongly affected by events beyond the individual's event horizon. One tends to take things like job loss to be personal failings rather than socio-economic adjustments or as you choose to call them 'conspiracy theories.'

One might ask the medical modellers, for example, why there seems at the moment to be something of a plague of paranoia and conspiracy theories. It's hard to see how 'chemicals in the brain' can be infectious (apart from prions of course).

A sociological theory of mental illness

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions