mjz
11-27-05, 03:11 AM
I posted this on another forum moments ago, but considering my latest decision to attempt to deviate from the wasteland (debatable) that is WHT in favor of seeking out a separate "underground" hosting forum to call home, I figured I'd add some content to HHO (a tentative choice).
Ever since the groundbreaking accomplishments of Freud, psychology has managed to penetrate the presupposition of how the industrialized and rational man is expected to act and behave. It could be stated that Freud's early work paved the way for the acceptance of empirical rationalizations as valid explanations for any sort of peculiar behavior witnessed in man that served to separate him from the whims of a painted societal convention. The doorway to the daunting world of emotional/behavioral catalysts was unlocked. Attempting to discover insights into human behavioral patterns is undoubtedly a giant step in terms of empathizing with them, accepting them and ultimately, discovering an overall true sense of communal humanistic solidarity.
Upon first glance, psychiatry appears to be a natural byproduct of psychology; a subordination fighting for the same cause, but to what extent is this true? If a primary goal of psychology is to understand and accept the rationale behind deviant behavior in the name of focusing on psychological rehabilitation for the overall purpose of creating better humanistic relations within society, then isn't it bizarre that psychiatry's goal appears to be the polar opposite of this? That is, in its attempt to suppress any sort of considered "deviation" in the individual and mold him/her back into the whims of societal convention. In other words, it almost seems as if psychiatry is largely serving to dampen the very emotional insights that psychology is otherwise fighting to understand and empathize with. This seems terribly contradictory to what appears to be (or should be at least) a primary goal of psychology. Through this sort of inadvertent subversion, psychiatry seems to ultimately be in the business of making psychology's overall goal harder to achieve in an authentic sense; obfuscating it through means of altering the very behavioral patterns it tries to understand in the crude name of a "healthy" return to a presupposed state of normalcy.
It is widely pointed out, for example, that SSRIs serve to sort of "dull" an individual's emotional response. A common description is that emotions sort of "middle out" in that the individual is unable to feel truly sad, yet unable to feel genuinely excited or happy either (many people will attest). This evidence is of course anecdotal at best (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020392), but that is somewhat beside the point. The fact is, that certain drugs are being used across the nation with the narrow goal of tampering with emotional response for the desperatre hope of a quick fix. This seems to be missing the point. The very notion of even attempting such a quick fix method for the damaged human pysche seems not only to insult, but to completely undermine the profound nature of the problem itself.
However, considering the demographic of supposed cured cases, I'm sure many of you will right away realize that psychiatric intervention isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think the question is, when does it become bad? It seems to me that it should be very frowned upon in the case of the autonomy of the individual being largely ignored by the authority of the psychiatrist. With that said, it really depends on the education and interest of the individual. I'm sure many patient/psychiatric relationships do indeed focus very well on the detailed dialectic between psych and patient to reach a goal which is largely in the interest of the patient. But what about when the patient is completely clueless or apathetic to the serious implications behind receiving medication to the extent that he puts blind faith into the psychiatrist? This of course, would leave it fully within the hands of the psychiatrist to determine an ideal or "cured" vision for the patient and set out to achieve it. This seems extremely destructive to any sort of genuine and spontaneous individual merit. Even worse, what if the psychiatrist is a hack or has become jaded and starts indifferently handing out medicine like candy? With the colossal and insidious push of the hungry pharmaceutical industry (http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/pharmaceuticalindustry.htm), this seems like a very possible actualization and one which many would argue is already occurring on a widespread scale.
It's interesting to read Fromm's prophetic critique concerning psychiatric shortcomings in his groundbreaking original work (published in 1941), Escape from Freedom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805031499/102-2969029-9770569?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance):
In our society emotions are generally discouraged. While there can be no doubt that any creative thinking--as well as any other creative activity--inseparably linked with emotion, it has become an ideal to think and to live without emotions. To be "emotional" has become synonymous with being unsound or unbalanced. By the acceptance of this standard the individual has become greatly weakened; his thinking is impoverished and flattened. On the other hand, since emotions cannot be completely killed, they must have their existence totally apart from the intellectual side of the personality; the result is the cheap and insincere sentimentality with which movies and popular songs feed millions of emotion-starved customers.
...psychiatry, enriched by these very achievements of Freud, has made itself an instrument of the general trends in the manipulation of personality. Many psychiatrists, including psychoanalysts, have painted the picture of a "normal" personality which is never too sad, too angry, or too excited. They use words like "infantile" or "neurotic" to denounce traits or types of personalities that do not conform with the conventional pattern of a "normal" individual. This kind of influence is in a way more dangerous than the older and franker forms of name-calling. Then the individual knew at least that there was some person or some doctrine which criticized him and he could fight back. But who can fight back at "science"?
Incidentally, I haven't read any Szasz (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0815604602/102-2969029-9770569?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) yet (although I plan to eventually) who as far as I can tell, appears to be credited as the original instigator of the anti-psychiatry movement. In regards to Fromm's early commentary, it makes me wonder to what extent Szasz was inspired by him or others. Either way, with that said, Szaszian versed proponents and opponents alike are very much welcome in this thread.
Disclaimer: I am not formally studying psychology/medicine or anything but like to dabble in it for the sake of personal knowledge opposed to making a career out of the field (which seems terribly cynical in itself, but that's another topic). If this question seems trite to psych major champions or something, I apologize, but am genuinely interested either way and would definitely like to hear your insights.
Ever since the groundbreaking accomplishments of Freud, psychology has managed to penetrate the presupposition of how the industrialized and rational man is expected to act and behave. It could be stated that Freud's early work paved the way for the acceptance of empirical rationalizations as valid explanations for any sort of peculiar behavior witnessed in man that served to separate him from the whims of a painted societal convention. The doorway to the daunting world of emotional/behavioral catalysts was unlocked. Attempting to discover insights into human behavioral patterns is undoubtedly a giant step in terms of empathizing with them, accepting them and ultimately, discovering an overall true sense of communal humanistic solidarity.
Upon first glance, psychiatry appears to be a natural byproduct of psychology; a subordination fighting for the same cause, but to what extent is this true? If a primary goal of psychology is to understand and accept the rationale behind deviant behavior in the name of focusing on psychological rehabilitation for the overall purpose of creating better humanistic relations within society, then isn't it bizarre that psychiatry's goal appears to be the polar opposite of this? That is, in its attempt to suppress any sort of considered "deviation" in the individual and mold him/her back into the whims of societal convention. In other words, it almost seems as if psychiatry is largely serving to dampen the very emotional insights that psychology is otherwise fighting to understand and empathize with. This seems terribly contradictory to what appears to be (or should be at least) a primary goal of psychology. Through this sort of inadvertent subversion, psychiatry seems to ultimately be in the business of making psychology's overall goal harder to achieve in an authentic sense; obfuscating it through means of altering the very behavioral patterns it tries to understand in the crude name of a "healthy" return to a presupposed state of normalcy.
It is widely pointed out, for example, that SSRIs serve to sort of "dull" an individual's emotional response. A common description is that emotions sort of "middle out" in that the individual is unable to feel truly sad, yet unable to feel genuinely excited or happy either (many people will attest). This evidence is of course anecdotal at best (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020392), but that is somewhat beside the point. The fact is, that certain drugs are being used across the nation with the narrow goal of tampering with emotional response for the desperatre hope of a quick fix. This seems to be missing the point. The very notion of even attempting such a quick fix method for the damaged human pysche seems not only to insult, but to completely undermine the profound nature of the problem itself.
However, considering the demographic of supposed cured cases, I'm sure many of you will right away realize that psychiatric intervention isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think the question is, when does it become bad? It seems to me that it should be very frowned upon in the case of the autonomy of the individual being largely ignored by the authority of the psychiatrist. With that said, it really depends on the education and interest of the individual. I'm sure many patient/psychiatric relationships do indeed focus very well on the detailed dialectic between psych and patient to reach a goal which is largely in the interest of the patient. But what about when the patient is completely clueless or apathetic to the serious implications behind receiving medication to the extent that he puts blind faith into the psychiatrist? This of course, would leave it fully within the hands of the psychiatrist to determine an ideal or "cured" vision for the patient and set out to achieve it. This seems extremely destructive to any sort of genuine and spontaneous individual merit. Even worse, what if the psychiatrist is a hack or has become jaded and starts indifferently handing out medicine like candy? With the colossal and insidious push of the hungry pharmaceutical industry (http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/pharmaceuticalindustry.htm), this seems like a very possible actualization and one which many would argue is already occurring on a widespread scale.
It's interesting to read Fromm's prophetic critique concerning psychiatric shortcomings in his groundbreaking original work (published in 1941), Escape from Freedom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805031499/102-2969029-9770569?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance):
In our society emotions are generally discouraged. While there can be no doubt that any creative thinking--as well as any other creative activity--inseparably linked with emotion, it has become an ideal to think and to live without emotions. To be "emotional" has become synonymous with being unsound or unbalanced. By the acceptance of this standard the individual has become greatly weakened; his thinking is impoverished and flattened. On the other hand, since emotions cannot be completely killed, they must have their existence totally apart from the intellectual side of the personality; the result is the cheap and insincere sentimentality with which movies and popular songs feed millions of emotion-starved customers.
...psychiatry, enriched by these very achievements of Freud, has made itself an instrument of the general trends in the manipulation of personality. Many psychiatrists, including psychoanalysts, have painted the picture of a "normal" personality which is never too sad, too angry, or too excited. They use words like "infantile" or "neurotic" to denounce traits or types of personalities that do not conform with the conventional pattern of a "normal" individual. This kind of influence is in a way more dangerous than the older and franker forms of name-calling. Then the individual knew at least that there was some person or some doctrine which criticized him and he could fight back. But who can fight back at "science"?
Incidentally, I haven't read any Szasz (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0815604602/102-2969029-9770569?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) yet (although I plan to eventually) who as far as I can tell, appears to be credited as the original instigator of the anti-psychiatry movement. In regards to Fromm's early commentary, it makes me wonder to what extent Szasz was inspired by him or others. Either way, with that said, Szaszian versed proponents and opponents alike are very much welcome in this thread.
Disclaimer: I am not formally studying psychology/medicine or anything but like to dabble in it for the sake of personal knowledge opposed to making a career out of the field (which seems terribly cynical in itself, but that's another topic). If this question seems trite to psych major champions or something, I apologize, but am genuinely interested either way and would definitely like to hear your insights.