"
I don't think the problem is that they haven't experienced it. To the
extent that we're talking natural human experiences, they have. And IMO,
this is the problem.
The shrink I mentioned, who gave a talk, obviously was not at all
prepared for anyone to question her statements, and it was actually
painful to watch her immediate reaction when I objected to her statement
that it was impossible, sometimes even dangerous, to join and be with
someone else in their "psychotic" universe. To be "psychotic" is to be,
to the greatest extent a human being is capable of, in touch with (and
being overwhelmed by) oneself, by (one's) human nature, which is a state
of woundedness. You can only be with somebody in this state of extreme
woundedness, if you don't fear your own woundedness. This woman was as
afraid of herself, of her own trauma and pain, as could be. The pain she
was in, alongside with her fear of it, was almost tangibly filling the
room for a few short moments. That's, IMO, often what drives them to go
into the business. Psychiatry is a war machine fighting human nature.
So, if you're afraid of your own human nature, of facing and accepting
the fact that you're a traumatized, hurting human being, if you're
afraid of the pain, become a shrink! It allows you to project your own
"madness" into those, who have become overwhelmed by theirs, and fight
it in them.
If it's a CBT therapist, or the postman, so to speak, doesn't make a
difference. The important thing is, whether someone has the
self-awareness and fearlessness to face and explore even the most
extreme states of existence, others' as well as their own, imaginable,
or whether they're controlled by fear. Therapy techniques and expert
knowledge can be, and often are, abused as a weapon to fight human
nature, and as a shield to protect oneself against it. And, if you ask
me, CBT here maybe even has a greater potential than other kinds of therapy.
!
My response.
£
I agree with a lot of what you've said. However let me make a long
response that might, I hope, open your mind up a little.
I'd add that psychosis may also be a connection with a part of the
universe we can't describe by science - call it god or spirits or
whatever. The "it's a resilt of trauma" is one interpretation but there
are so many.
Consider schizotaxia - a genetic pre-state (unproven as yet). (Meehl)
This may indicate that there are types of human being. It's what happens
to them and how society judges them that creates the pathology of
schizophrenia. It may not truly be a disease of the indiivudal but a
disease created by society, just like homosexuality used to be
considered a mental illness.
I agree with the idea that's in an unsual or extreme state of
consciousness but the pathology itself exists through society (and
through psychiatry's) constructs. There's the paradox of how people in
the developing world do better than the developed world. IMO it's
because the society is constructed different. There was never "The Great
Confinement." (Foucault)
Biomedical psychiatry only understands it from the outside. It's not
impossible to engage with what the individual is going through. There's
a story of RD Laing seeing a patient lying naked on the floor. Typical
psychiatrist would have called that madness. He strippped down and
joined the pateint.
"expert knowledge" in psychosis is something that makes me smile. No
offence to professionals and people like Rufus who've spent their lives
trying to understand and help people. I think we're all babes in the
wood when it comes to psychosis. It truly is one of the great questions
of humanity.
I had the 'pleasure' to go through intense psychosis and read about it.
I read far and wide. I still do. I read all sorts of stuff including the
stuff where people think it's the government trying to control their
thoughts or a connection with god as well as the psychiatric stuff
which, historically, has explained the 'delusions' as meaningless
artifacts of a brain illness.
I'm not so ready to let psychiatry off the hook though. Lobotomies,
leucotomies, camphor injections, insulin induced coma and, of course,
the still used ECT. Oh, and the massive overdiagnosis of black men in
the US and UK.
Compassion is one of the paradigms of what mental healthcare is. I
agree. Another is socio-political and about defining norms and forcing
people to be like them. There are two other paradigms two but my memory
ain't great. The best book to get into this theorectical view is the
first chapter of
Mental Health Promotion: Paradigms and Practice by Keith Tudor.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mental-Health-Promotion-Paradigms-Practice/dp/0415101069
As for CBT...I'm not part of the bandwagon that belives that this is the
sole therapy that's effective for people. In fact I don't really
consider it a psychological therapy per se. It's a talking therapy more
akin to behavioural modification. The aim is to change the way people
think and behave.
Can I use the word epistomolgy? It's a big word that basically means how
do you know what you know? The only truth I've found from the empirical
evidence on psychological therapies and psychosis is simply: different
things work for different people. Social contact or the Hawthorne effect
may be more important than the theory of the therapy. Certainly in the
high quality reviews CBTp ain't so good.
IMHO, society needs to change. It's that simple. Anti-stigma is part of
it but it goes far deeper. (Mind)
"
No comments:
Post a Comment