Is this a curiosity or a remnant of the dark ages? Let the dead stay buried, I say!
Just in time for April Fool’s Day, we have the re-release of a book that sets mental health back fifty years. Too bad the author isn’t kidding. In an updated version of his 1961 book, The Myth of Mental Illness, Thomas Szasz again is out to convince the world that there is no such thing as mental illness. Is he nuts or what?…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Cindy
17 - MC
I think that is an excellent point.
27 - FCEtier
1) "The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care" by Benjamin Spock, M.D. was originally published in 1946. According to Jay Parini in his analysis, "Spock's own ideas would certainly develop, even shift, in subsequent decades, and he revised his book again and again, always taking into account new research in medicine and fresh ideas." Obviously Szasz was not of a like mind.
2) Szasz wrote the preface himself to this most recent edition. I wonder why none of his legions of supporters didn't step forward and honor his work with a testimony in another voice? Isn't that type of loyalty common with significant new publications of classic works?
28 - MC at earthpages.org
Thanks Cindy.
Emm, thank you too for the refresher! It's been a long time since I sat in psyc. courses at undergraduate university (mid-1980s). My memory told me there was a basic distinction between casual and correlational experiments.
After snooping around on the web last night I realized the distinction is, more properly, between the experimental and correlational design. Some sites seem to suggest, as some profs might have in my undergrad. courses, that experimental designs could infer causality if confounding variables were carefully controlled. But in the next paragraph these sites would also admit this is very difficult to achieve, for various reasons.
Okay, so now that I’ve brushed up on my clinical psychology, I’ll switch to the sociology of science, just as I switched my major from psychology to sociology before graduating…
And I guess the point to be made here is that once the idea of, say, chemical imbalance, filters down to the social services and advertising level, it’s often treated as if a causal relationship exits between that idea and mood disturbances. I remember seeing an ad to this effect on TV, replete with a simplified cartoon, telling viewers that “depression is caused by a chemical imbalance… and buy this medication to fix it.”
Now, many people haven’t taken the time to research nor carefully think these things through. So the idea of chemical imbalances becomes a kind of social “truth” in the Foucauldian postmodern sense (someone mentioned Michel Foucault here earlier).
I don’t see this as a grand conspiracy, however. I believe that many scientific researchers and practicing psychiatrists are decent, well-meaning people who sincerely wish to help people. And they can’t control how psychiatric ideas are disseminated in the media and through other social apparatuses.
So Szaz has it partly right in that a socially generated idea gains more legitimacy and power than it really deserves. But I think this just happens, mostly due to lack of education and the prevalent desire for quick answers and equally quick remedies.
Again, I don’t see any grand conspiracy. I think that is off base and unfair. The very fact that psychiatry updates the DSM every now and then can be taken as evidence that it’s a self-correcting science and not an oppressive ‘regime of truth’ as some extremists would have it.
Having said that, there have been a few stories on the web about abuses in some countries where political opponents have been institutionalized on the basis of their being “mentally ill.” And that kind of professional abuse is frightening. But it would be flat wrong to generalize those extreme instances to every psychiatrist in every nation.
29 - Alan Kurtz
FCEtier (#27), you're actually comparing The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care with The Myth of Mental Illness? Spousal loyalty (even unacknowledged, as you ought to have done) is gallant, but that's a stretch. Pediatricians are to psychiatrists as Nobel laureates are to witch doctors.
30 - roger nowosielski
At least you're trying to fair and balanced, MC.
BTW, when Foucault spoke of "mechanisms of power," and the various strategies that "power" deployed, he wasn't talking in any naive sense of there being any conspiracy.
31 - Cindy
MC -
28 is very intriguing. I'll have to think about my response awhile. Meantime, do you think Foucault saw a grand conspiracy? Further, whether 'yes' or 'no', how does this relate to your analysis of what you are calling 'socially' created 'truth'? That is how do you tie in your idea of what Foucault is saying with what you are saying?
32 - Cindy
Ouch Roger, I didn't see that post. I hope MC will answer anyway with what s/he(?) thinks.
Roger, I posted to you on the previous page. Not sure if you saw it or not. Or you preferred to skip a reply. I was curious about your thinking.
33 - roger nowosielski
I preferred to skip it, Cindy.
34 - Cindy
Ok, that's cool, then.
35 - roger nowosielski
You should be glad.
I did not want to say what I might regret.
36 - roger nowosielski
I've just re-read your #25, and I can only reiterate:
"Except for organically-based mental disorders, other forms of therapy are just as effective."
This is a categorical, i.e., definitional, not a factual statement. I have no way of telling which disorders are strictly organically-based and which are not. And I'm certain this matter is a subject to disagreement even among practitioners.
And when I spoke of "psychiatry," I had in mind a more encompassing term than what may be in current use and delimited to dispensing of drugs - which is to say, inclusive of anything connected with mental health. (Psyche in Greek stands for "soul.")
And given that sense, therapy is also part of the psychiatric practice, as well as administration of drugs.
Consequently, I don't see why my rather balanced statement was controversial.
37 - Cindy
The main point I got was that you were calling into question my support of medication as opposed to talk therapy. You stated (approximately) that supporting medication would go against everything I stand for. I say that is a pretty controversial thing to say. Funny enough, at one time I would have agreed with that.
As for saying things you would regret. I guess that it's you who might be lucky not to say things you regret rather than me. I will take you for what you are. If you want to say things you regret, if my reply made you angry for some reason I can't figure out, I'll deal with it.
38 - roger nowosielski
Why should your reply make me angry? If I didn't respond, it's because I read you as being in a mood. But moods pass.
39 - Cindy
I assumed you might be angry because you said that you might say something you regret. Isn't that when people generally do such things, when they are angry?
Now, I see what happened. You might say something you would regret because you thought I was in a mood. Okay, that would be reasonable. But I didn't think of that because I was not in a mood at all. I was entirely straight, serious, and relaxed.
40 - roger nowosielski
Well, I just read you as being contrary, so I decided to lay off. But angry?
You didn't attack me or anything, not that I recall.
41 - MC at earthpages.org
Roger - Right you are. I was actually referring to Szaz there, along with the extreme anti-psychiatry advocates. The fault is in my writing. It could have been more clear.
Cindy - Toward the end of his career Foucault came to believe that power is not just oppressive but also creative. This means that power has the ability to create social "truths" or, if you prefer, instances of “social knowledge.” But these truth claims are relative to a given culture or subculture and not trans-historical or absolute.
From this, many postmodern thinkers have picked up on Foucault’s ideas to “deconstruct” truth claims that are taken for granted within a given social group or subgroup. To deconstruct simply means to look at something and ask… hey, is this really right? Could we explain this another way?
Foucault himself was gay, and he deconstructed the notion that homosexuality is “unnatural,” citing instances in ancient Greece where homosexuality was, to some degree, acceptable.
Interestingly enough, the DSM used to classify homosexuality as a disorder. But the APA changed that around 1970 (I can’t remember the exact date offhand). Some see this as evidence that psychiatry isn’t a science but simply bends to popular opinion. Others see it as evidence that psychiatry is scientific and self-correcting. Meanwhile, some traditional religious people see it as evidence that psychiatry can be swayed by Satan.
It’s a complicated area to be sure. The mind involves so many things… nature, nurture and, I would add, spirituality.
I hope this makes it a bit more clear!
42 - roger nowosielski
You should join our discussion group on Foucault and postmodernist thought, MC.
Here is the link: discussion.
I didn't mean to beat Cindy to the punch, but I'm certain she would concur.
43 - Cindy
41 - MC,
Is it that you were just being careful about the 'conspiracy' thing because most people seem to think along those lines: that in order for the whole Foucaldian power thing to work, a conspiracy is required?
I don't think a conspiracy is required either. Mark (who posted on the first page) put it well once when he said it is more a collaboration.
The very fact that psychiatry updates the DSM every now and then can be taken as evidence that it’s a self-correcting science and not an oppressive ‘regime of truth’ as some extremists would have it.
I think this can be taken as evidence maybe that there is no conspiracy of evil masterminds trying to control truth in an orchestrated completely conscious way. But, I do think Foucault was right about power; I just think it is insidious. He who controls the 'truth' makes the rules.
I am a little confused--not sure whether you are agreeing with Foucault or disagreeing.
BTW, I am familiar with Foucault because we have been studying him in that thread Roger pointed you to for the last 6 months, it seems. But I really appreciate your clear and careful explanation. I would have understood it even if I was not familiar with him and that is a difficult thing to explain.
44 - Cindy
He who controls the 'truth' also gets to decide which version of reality dominates.
45 - roger nowosielski
Well, you know Cindy that I'll be first to admit existence of exceptions (e.g, mental disorder of organic variety, a "criminal mind," as it were, a psychopath, etcetera and etcetera). But exceptions don't prove the rule.
And the whole stress of much of the postmodern thought has to do with social, not individual/personal pathology, with "social" identified as the root cause.
It is for that reason why stress on medication runs counter to the spirit of the postmodernist critique - for it makes us take our eyes off the ball.
I hope you understand where I was coming from. And regardless your antipathy to Szasz (we've been over this before, see, I don't really forget anything), his kind of work, along with Erwin Goffman (and Foucault of course) was pioneering work - to alert all of us to the extent to which the mechanism of "social deviance" was but a means of social control, again, not necessarily by way of conspiracy but in a Foucauldian, insidious kind of way - the way of power.
It is for that reason that Szasz and the others are important - despite the radical position taken. And taking a radical position was precisely in order in order to alert us to "alternative social reality." It was strategically sound, even if not altogether accurate or true to facts.
46 - Cindy
Roger,
I don't really understand your first sentence. Can you reiterate?
Sentence 2 & 3: Ah, okay, now that makes sense to me! And I agree 102%! However, until the society changes people are bleeding. But, I want to cure an individual depressed person--whose depression, I would agree is caused by the state of society. Making them wait until society changes is selfish. In fact, they may be in a better position to change society after experiencing its deleterious effects upon them, from a well mental state which may require medication rather than by actually making them wait until society changes...
So, I don't see medication as an end goal. I do see social change as the real need. But if society causes me a headache, then I still want an aspirin. I argue that we can offer splints and bandaids and sutures during the war without forgetting that we need to end the war.
As to your last two paragraphs, I agreed wholeheartedly throughout my comments. I hope you saw that. See my first comment to Alan about Szasz. I prefer sane people, like Foucault and Laing to nuts like Szasz though. And I say he is nuts mostly because of what he has done contemporarily rather than 50 years ago.
47 - Cindy
I am only holding his current trespasses against him.
48 - roger nowosielski
I'm drawing a distinction between social and individual pathology.
49 - roger nowosielski
I'm not aware of his contemporaneous sins. Only referred to his original work.
50 - Cindy
I'm drawing a distinction between social and individual pathology.
I consider psychopathology to be based in the social realm rather than the biological realm. Are you in agreement? Or are you saying something else?
I'm not aware of his contemporaneous sins. Only referred to his original work.
Okay, well, his contemporary sins (as I said in my comments above) are: 1) that he never ever modified his position, and 2) he cofounded an organization with one of the most destructive and powerful cults in the history of the world. He was so blinded by his own ideas that he either didn't seem to notice (was he stupid?) that he was in league with the devil OR he intentionally joined with this cult despite knowing this in order to promote his ideas, because he was either obsessed or egotistical, or somehow or other personally deficient.
One cannot team up with the cult of scientology and in my book be both rational and good. One is either nuts to do so, or evil.
51 - roger nowosielski
Exactly. That's why to focus on exceptions is to be taking a detour from the topic.
52 - roger nowosielski
His life is of no concern to me, his thought is. And yes, people can be blinded by their own ideas, especially if they're powerful ideas. (So I'm not going to judge him as a person.)
Besides, I'm not exactly certain that he denied the possibility of genuine mental disorder in his original work. Are you certain now he made no kind of allowance?
53 - Cindy
Yes, I am certain. (Still, I haven't read the book since I was a teen.)
This is my rough idea of what Szasz believed: He believed that 'illness' is the result of a physical 'abnormality' or 'disease' (my words). Because there is no discoverable physical ailment component to a mental state, then how can there be 'mental illness'? Ipso facto mental illness is a myth. It is a fiction.
Now the part about psychiatry being an oppressive and coercive system is the part I agree with him on and I agree with Foucault and with Laing.
But, Szasz was critical of Laing for the very reason that Laing did 'believe' in 'mental illness' in a sense more than Szasz did. This quote is a good way of putting it: Thomas Szasz attacked Laing for his lack of rigour (Mullan 1995) and although Laing agreed that the term mental illness is a metaphor, he argued that it mapped onto reality.
54 - Cindy
Laing just thought it was caused socially.
55 - roger nowosielski
Here's a digest.
56 - FCEtier
Alan: from (#1) "I suppose you also fault Tolstoy's War and Peace for ignoring Predator drones and Apache helicopters armed with laser-guided missiles. A classic book must be considered as a product of its times."
You missed the point of my analogy. I had no intention of comparing the work of Spock to Szasz, nor their different fields. I was addressing the point that you brought up regarding old men changing their minds. Spock constantly updated his work to include new findings and new information. Szasz did not.
57 - Cindy
Good link, Roger. A little summary.
Here is something worth noting: Szasz’s Political Views. He was apparently a right-wing libertarian.
Szasz’s political views, inasmuch as they are about regulating relations among citizens, can be characterized as “libertarian,” at least, when this word is understood in the meaning that the word “liberal” had for the founders of the United States of America. Szasz often quotes these Founding Fathers approvingly, and he not infrequently refers to the United States Constitution in his arguments. In Law, Liberty, and Psychiatry he even dedicated a chapter to it, in which he notes which basic legal rights are unjustly denied psychiatric patients.
Laing was a leftist. Laing was brilliant. Laing said things like this:
"The specifically human feature of human groupings can be exploited to turn them into the semblance of non-human systems. ....All those people who seek to control the behaviour of large numbers of other people work on the experiences of those other people. Once people can be induced to experience a situation in a similar way, they can be expected to behave in similar ways. Induce people all to want the same thing, hate the same things, feel the same threat, then their behaviour is already captive - you have acquired your consumers or your cannon-fodder. Induce a common perception of Negroes as subhuman, or the Whites as vicious and effete, and behaviour can be concerted accordingly.....
The inertia of human groups, however, which appear as the very negation of praxis, is in fact the product of praxis and nothing else. This group inertia can only be an instrument of mystification if it is taken to be part of the ‘natural order of things’. The ideological abuse of such an idea is obvious. It so clearly serves the interests of those whose interest it is to have people believe that the status quo is of the ‘natural order’, ordained Divinely or by ‘natural’ laws. ...The group becomes a machine - and it is forgotten that it is a man-made machine in which the machine is the very men who make it. It is quite unlike a machine made by men, which can have an existence of its own. The group is men themselves arranging themselves in patterns, strata, assuming and assigning different powers, functions, roles, rights, obligations and so on."
Ronnie Laing - pp80-1 / Ch.4 - The Politics of Experience. [1967]
58 - roger nowosielski
And addendum to Szasz's link from Lacan on schizophrenia.
Haven't read it yet but will. I haven't got into S's political views (will look up your link/s), but it would appear to me he sort of indirectly expresses them at the end of the cited digest.
Well, not "political" views per se, but views concerning the need for persons to take responsibility. So one can extrapolate from there.
And since, I'm at it, here's another book on Lacan, a collection of essays, which I intend to get: it indeed looks interesting. Plus, I think I might import parts of this thread to our discussion circle.
Later
59 - Cindy
Thanks. I'll have a look tomorrow if I get a chance. Back to the grindstone tomorrow. Better go to sleep now. Night night.
60 - MC at earthpages.org
Roger,
Thanks very much for the invite. I am interested in much of what you and Cindy are talking about. And it seems I could learn from both of you. If I can find time I’ll certainly drop by.
I usually don’t get into long threads because in the past they’ve been antagonistic, and too time and energy consuming. But you both seem committed to positive dialogue, which is nice.
I bit at this one because my doctorate was about Jung’s concept of synchronicity and Foucault’s poststructuralism. I was interested in how Jung was “selling” the concept--i.e. making it acceptable for a Western audience. The closest thing I’ve come to the concept of synchronicity might be Lacan’s synchrony. Although a Lacan expert disagreed when I tried to include it in my thesis. Hence, it’s all been removed from the final version.
Cindy,
When I was younger I was probably more inclined to view psychiatry as a monolithic power-truth-defining scheme, if you will. But these days I tend to see social realities as more complex. And I think Foucault would agree with this kind of approach. His notion of discourse includes the idea of counter-discourse. So whenever a truth claim is generated, something arises to oppose or modify it.
As you probably know, Foucault saw history in terms of struggle.
Regarding other thinkers, I tend to extract and modify some of their ideas for my own agenda. I doubt I would entirely agree with anyone. But I do find value in other people’s ideas and tend to apply them… my way.
Btw, sorry for assuming lack of familiarity with Foucault and PM ideas. I can see that both you and Roger are very up on these things.
61 - roger nowosielski
Thanks for responding, MC.
You're quite right, we're not antagonistic in the wrong sense (although disagreements ensue), but I believe we all share the value of an open-ended discussion.
My agenda is to explore the ramifications of the current "social theory" to the fullest, to the cutting edge as it were, and I'm certain Cindy's aims are no different. Besides, we have another resident philosopher on the thread Mark Eden (see his comment early up the thread) who serves as sort of stop-gap - keeping both of us honest and from "running ahead of ourselves." So we do have a rather special, congenial group - but I feel there's definitely a need for "new blood," especially since the subject matter is one of your specialties.
In particular, I would be interested - actually, am interested - in exploring the positive aspects of "power" somewhat latent in Foucault's latter works, for therein, I believe, lie answers to the proper kind of stance we as individuals or groups of individuals can take by way of "creative resistance." As you shall see, we're already exploring this aspect of Foucault's studies.
So in any case, please feel free to join in as your time will allow. I'm certain all three of us would very much welcome your contributions and input.
RN
62 - MC at earthpages.org
Roger,
My main interest these days is to combine theory and practice by doing a kind of postmodern theology. By that I mean deconstructing just about everything while engaging in a serious attempt to "do the right thing."
Having said that, I do believe in God and an individual, transhistorical self. I should state this bias right at the outset.
When I speak of the creative aspects of power, apropos of Foucault’s later works, I’m not only referring to the idea of personal or subcultural empowerment. I’m referring more to the idea that successful discourses have a tendency to create social knowledge (and thus inform ways of thinking). And this is not just an abstract, cerebral process; the tangible effects of these relative truths are often quite real.
For instance, within the mental health debate, we only have to think of the potential short and long term side effects of many medications. While medications can no doubt be of benefit to certain individuals, I think some may suffer needlessly due to incompetent practitioners.
I’m not sure if this issue of competence vs. incompetence within psychiatry has cropped up yet. But in any case, I think it’s a worthwhile point to consider.
As for my own agenda, because I’m not a revolutionary personality type like Karl Marx, for example, I’m really talking about tweaking existing structures for the common good. I guess I believe in social evolution (another potentially complicated issue!). So instead of “creative resistance” I’d probably prefer to say “creative redirection.” It’s a soft approach. But as Jim Morrison once put it… “The soft parade has now begun!” :-)
63 - roger nowosielski
MC,
That's why I put "creative resistance" in scare quotes. Foucault himself spoke of necessity for a kind of "self-transformation," not of resistance in terms of liberation movements or attaining greater autonomy, because resistance (to power) is self-defining and only perpetuates the existing social order.
So we are on the same page, more or less.
64 - roger nowosielski
To follow up, my (theoretical) interest is how to enlarge on personal "self-transformation" - a relatively easy thing to do, for some - so as to bring others "into the fold" and affect a sort of "societal transformation."
Which is why we're exploring right now the concept of community as on possible end result/accretion of a "personal quest" when applied to, and hopefully realizable in, "the social."
65 - MC at earthpages.org
Roger,
It's funny because one of the first things I said to one of the profs at the U. (in a preliminary interview before signing up for my Ph.D) was that "we needed more discourse" about what I then called, "persons of numinosity."
I'm not sure if you are familiar with the term, numinous. It was coined by a Lutheran, Rudolf Otto, as an attempt to get at some of the varieties of religious experience.
I mention this because IMHO the numinous can come into play for individuals undergoing a personal quest--i.e. transformation.
So yes, I agree. The more we talk about this stuff, the more that can ripple out into the social nexus and effect positive change.
66 - roger nowosielski
My first reaction was, it's the old Kantian usage, and I was right. As per the following:
"?????????" is the nominative, neuter, singular, middle/passive participle of the ancient Greek word, "????? (noein)", which in turn originates from "nous" (roughly, "mind"). Noumenon does not refer to "numinous", a term coined by Rudolf Otto who, though well versed in Kant, drew the term from the Latin word numen which means deity, divine will or divine presence; it is unknown however if the ancient Latinate etymology of numen itself is not of Greek origin.
(Wiki)
67 - roger nowosielski
The Greek characters don't post.
68 - MC at earthpages.org
That's funny because another Wiki entry that I looked at said the two terms, Kant's and Otto's, are not etymologically related--i.e. it was far more definitive than the entry you mention.
"He coined this new term based on the Latin numen (deity). This expression is etymologically unrelated to Immanuel Kant's noumenon, a Greek term referring to an unknowable reality underlying all things." >> Rudolf Otto
But even if the words are not etymologically related, they can still point to a semantic relation, however imperfectly.
69 - roger nowosielski
Precisely. The semantic relationship is all there staring you in the face. It's only a question of secularizing the religious content, but given Greek classical, anthropomorphic culture, I would argue for a relationship in reverse - namely, one of deifying the secular.
70 - MC at earthpages.org
Hmm.. not sure if you checked or not but the title of my thesis was "Synchronicity and Postructuralism: C. G. Jung's Secularization of the Supramundane" (1997).
This might seem like a bit of a jump but the psychiatrist Jung said that synch. and numinosity can occur together.
Not many people realize that Jung was a full-fledged medical psychiatrist. But he was, which brings us back to Szaz.
I think contemporary psychiatry might benefit from a more nuanced approach to spirituality. I'm not sure about the latest DSM-5 (to be released in May 2013?) but past manuals seem to recognize spirituality as long as it conforms to some kind of standardized group belief (as with a Church, for instance).
Not much room there for individual innovation--i.e. mavericks, pioneers of the spirit, and so on.
71 - roger nowosielski
Well, to spirituality and, indirectly, to morality and human values.
One of Szasz's strong points was his insistence on the necessary connection between therapy (any psychiatric practice, in fact) and moral values.
72 - MC at earthpages.org
Oh, I guess I've been spelling the poor guy's name wrong all this time! Anyhow, I think that connection is vital to any social enterprise. And I imagine that's the main struggle that mankind will always be faced with.
I'm not a pessimist nor pie-eyed optimist about the future. My best guess is that human beings will forever be trying to keep a balance. Well, maybe not a perfect balance, per se, because I'd hope the scales would be tipped in favor of mercy, forgiveness, second chances, etc.
73 - thePod
Mr Etier: Spot on ("hung up on the terms")
("very narrow definition")("so much repetition")
This should explain (and support) it all"
"The trick is -- WORDS ARE REDEFINED TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROPAGANDIST. Many instances of planned and campaigned in order to obtain a public opinion advantage for the group doing the propaganda. Given enough repetition of the redefinition public opinion can be altered by altering the meaning of a word. The technique is good or bad depending on the ultimate objective of the propagandist.
"'Psychiatry' and 'psychiatrist' are easily redefined to mean 'an anti-social enemy of the people'. This takes the kill crazy psychiatrist off the preferred list of Professions... The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were intended...Scientologists are redefining 'doctor', 'Psychiatry' and 'psychology' to mean 'undesirable antisocial elements'...The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible. Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 5 October 1971, PR Series 12, "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words"
74 - Herb
Thomas Szasz is the darling of Scientologists, so - brace for incoming?
In the meantime, enjoy this: Thomas Szasz: Psychiatrists Respond
75 - roger nowosielski
Here's the link: Psychiatrists Respond.