The Identity of Psychiatry and the Challenge of Mad Activism: Rethinking the Clinical Encounter

[Introduction to an essay currently in press with the Journal of Medicine & Philosophy]

Psychiatry has an identity in the sense that it is constituted by certain understandings of what it is and what it is for. The key element in this identity is that psychiatry is a medical speciality. During the early years of their training, medical doctors make a choice about the speciality they want to pursue. Psychiatry is one of them, and so is ophthalmology, cardiology, gynaecology, and paediatrics. Modern medical specialities share some fundamental features: they treat conditions, disorders, or diseases; they aspire to be evidence-based in the care and treatments they offer; they are grounded in basic sciences such as physiology, anatomy, histology, and biochemistry; and they employ technology in investigations, research, and development of treatments. These features characterize modern medical specialities even as physicians are increasingly framing their work in ways that take account of the whole person, recognising conflicting values and their implications for diagnosis and treatment, and acknowledging the role of the arts and humanities in medical education and practice (see, for example, Cox, Campbell, and Fulford 2007; Fulford, van Staden, and Crisp 2013; Cook 2010; and McManus 1995).

Psychiatry differentiates itself from other medical specialties by the conditions that it treats: mental health conditions or disorders, to be contrasted with physical health conditions or disorders. The nature of its subject matter, which are disturbances of the mind and their implications, raises certain complexities for psychiatry that, in extreme, are sometimes taken to suggest that psychiatry’s positioning as a medical speciality is suspect; these include the normative nature of psychiatric judgements, the explanatory limitations of psychiatric theories, and the classificatory inaccuracies that beset the discipline.

There are significant, ongoing debates in these three areas that do not, at present, appear to be nearing resolution. But these debates are themselves superseded by a foundational challenge to psychiatry’s identity as a medical speciality, a challenge that emanates from particular approaches in mental health activism. These approaches, which I will be referring to as Mad activism, reject the language of ‘mental illness’ and ‘mental disorder’, and with it the assumption that people have a condition that requires treatment. The idea that medicine treats conditions, disorders, or diseases is at the heart of medical practice and theory, and this includes psychiatry in so far as it wishes to understand itself as a branch of medicine. In rejecting the premise that people ‘have’ a ‘condition’, Mad activism is issuing a challenge to psychiatry’s identity as a medical speciality.
In this paper I examine how psychiatry might accommodate the challenge of Mad activism in the context of the clinical encounter.

CONTINUE READING HERE

Best of 2018 Philosophy List by Oxford University Press

Philosophy-BEST-OF-2017-AKT11460-with-2017-v2-980-x-160

Check out Oxford University Press’ list of articles chosen from across its journals to represent the ‘Best of 2018’.

My article In Defense of Madness: The Problem of Disability is included under the entries for the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy.

For other articles, I enjoyed reading Roger Scruton’s Why Beauty Matters in The Monist.

On the idea of Mad Culture (and a comparison with Deaf Culture)

  1. WHAT IS CULTURE?

 Part of the difficulty in making sense of the notion of Mad culture is the meaning of culture as such. The term ‘culture’ refers to a range of related concepts which are not always sufficiently distinguished from each other in various theoretical discussions. There are, at least, three concepts of culture (see Rashed 2013a and 2013b):

  • Culture as an activity: the “tending of natural growth” (Williams 1958, p. xvi); “to inhabit a town or district, to cultivate, tend, or till the land, to keep and breed animals” (Jackson 1996, p. 16); to grow bacteria in a Petri-dish; to cultivate and refine one’s artistic and intellectual capacities – to become cultured. This final meaning – culture as intellectual refinement – lives today in the Culture section of newspapers.
  • Culture as an analytic concept in the social sciences: this is the concept of culture that we find, for example, in the academic discipline of anthropology. The academic concept of culture has evolved rapidly since its introduction by Edward Tylor in the late 19th[1] Today, ‘culture’ is used to refer to socially acquired and shared symbols, meanings, and significances that structure experience, behaviour, interpretation, and social interaction; culture “orients people in their ways of feeling, thinking, and being in the world” (Jenkins and Barrett 2004, p. 5; see Rashed 2013a, p. 4). As an analytic concept it enables researchers and theoreticians to account for the specific nature of, and the differences among, social phenomena and peoples’ subjective reports of their experiences. For example, a prolonged feeling of sadness can be explained by one person as the effect of a neurochemical imbalance, by another as the effect of malevolent spirits, and by another as a test of one’s faith: these differences can be accounted for through the concept of culture. (See Risjord (2012) for an account of various models of culture in the social sciences.)

When we refer to ‘culture’ in constructions such as Mad culture and Maori culture we are not appealing to either of the two concepts of culture just outlined. For what we intend is not an activity or an analytic concept but a thing. This brings us to the third concept of culture I want to outline and the one that features in political discussions on cultural rights.

  • Culture as a noun: this is the societal concept of culture; Will Kymlicka (1995, p. 76) defines it as follows:

a culture which provides its members with meaningful ways of life across the full range of human activities, including social, educational, religious, recreational, and economic life, encompassing both public and private spheres. These cultures tend to be territorially concentrated, and based on a shared language.

Similarly, Margalit and Halbertal (1994, pp. 497-498) understand the societal concept of culture “as a comprehensive way of life”, comprehensive in the sense that it covers crucial aspects of individuals’ lives such as occupations, the nature of relationships, a common language, traditions, history, and so on. Typical examples of societal cultures include Maori, French-Canadian, Ultra-Orthodox Jewish, Nubian, and Aboriginal Canadian cultures. All these groups have previously campaigned for cultural rights within the majorities in which they exist, such as the right to engage in certain practices or to ensure the propagation of their language or to protect their way of life.

To stave off the obvious objections to this final concept of culture I point out that there is no necessary implication here that a given societal culture is fixed in time – Nubian culture can change while remaining ‘Nubian’. Neither is there an implication that all members of the community agree on what is necessary and what is contingent in the definition of their culture, or on the extent of the importance of this belief or that practice. And neither is a societal culture hermetically sealed from the outside world: “there is no watertight boundary around a culture” is the way Mary Midgley (1991, p. 83) puts it. Indeed it is because there is no hermetic seal around a societal culture that it can change, thrive, or disintegrate in light of its contact with other communities. In proceeding, then, I consider the key aspects of a societal culture to be that it is enduring (it existed long before me), shared (there many others who belong to it), and comprehensive (it provides for fundamental aspects of social life). In light of a societal culture’s appearance of independence, it can be looked upon as a ‘thing’ that one can relate to in various ways such as being part of it, alienated from it, rejected by it, or rejecting it. Can Madness constitute a culture in accordance with this concept?

2. CAN MADNESS CONSTITUTE A CULTURE? 

In the activist literature we find descriptions of elements of Mad culture, as the following excerpts indicate:

Is there such a thing as a Mad Culture? … Historically there has been a dependence on identifying Mad people only with psychiatric diagnosis, which assumes that all Mad experiences are about biology as if there wasn’t a whole wide world out there of Mad people with a wide range of experiences, stories, history, meanings, codes and ways of being with each other. Consider some of these basics when thinking about Madness and Mad experiences: We have all kinds of organized groups (political or peer) both provincially and nationally. We have produced tons and tons of stories and first person accounts of our experiences. We have courses about our Mad History. We have all kinds of art which expresses meaning – sometimes about our madness. We have our own special brand of jokes and humour. We have films produced about our experiences and interests. We have rights under law both Nationally and internationally. We have had many many parades and Mad Pride celebrations for decades now. (Costa 2015, p.4 – abridged, italics added)

As the italicised words indicate, this description of Mad culture recalls key aspects of culture: shared experiences, shared histories, codes of interaction and mutual understanding, social organisation, creative productions, cultural events. Many of these notions can be subsumed under the idea that Mad people have unique ways of looking at and experiencing the world:

Mad Culture is a celebration of the creativity of mad people, and pride in our unique way of looking at life, our internal world externalised and shared with others without shame, as a valid way of life. (Sen 2011, p.5)

When we talk about cultures, we are talking about Mad people as a people and equity-seeking group, not as an illness… As Mad people, we have unique ways of experiencing the world, making meaning, knowing and learning, developing communities, and creating cultures. These cultures are showcased and celebrated during Mad Pride (Mad Pride Hamilton).

A key component of culture is a shared language, and cultural communities are frequently identified as linguistic communities (e.g. the French-Canadians or the Inuit). A similar emphasis on language and shared understanding can also be found in accounts of Mad culture:

As Mad people we develop unique cultural practices: We use language in particular ways to identify ourselves (including the reclamation of words like crazy, mad, and nuts). We form new understandings of our experiences that differ from those of biomedical psychiatry. (deBei 2013, p. 8)

The experience of Madness produces unique behaviour and language that many Normals don’t understand but which make complete sense to many of us. (Costa 2015, p.4)

We can find a community in our shared experiences. We can find a culture in our shared creativity, our comedy and compassion. Sit in a room full of Nutters and one Normal, see how quickly the Normal is either controlling the conversation or outside of it. They do not share our understanding of the world, and here you can see evidence of our Culture, our Community. (Clare 2011, p. 16)

So, can madness constitute a culture? In the foregoing excerpts, activists certainly want to affirm this possibility. But the idea of Mad culture does not fit neatly with communities typically considered to be cultural communities. A typical cultural community, as outlined in section 1, tends to have shared language and practices, a geographic location or locations, a commitment to shared historical narrative(s), and offers for its members a comprehensive way of life. Compared to this, Mad culture appears quite atypical; for example, there is no shared language as such – references to ‘language’ in the previous quotes indicate the kind of private codes that tend to develop between friends who have known each other for many years, and not to a systematic medium of communication. People who identify as Mad, or who are diagnosed with ‘schizophrenia’ or ‘bipolar disorder’, come from all over the world and have no geographic location, no single language or a single shared history (the history of mental health activism in the English speaking world is bound to be different to that in South America). Further, Mad culture does not offer a comprehensive way of life in the same way that Aboriginal Canadian culture may. Mad people can and do form communities of course – Mad Pride and similar associations are a case in point – the question here, however, is whether these can be considered cultural communities.

Perhaps Quebeckers and Maoris are not suitable comparisons to Mad culture. Another community to examine, and which may be more analogous in so far as it also continues to fight medicalisation and disqualification, is Deaf culture. On visiting Gallaudet University in 1986 – a university for the education of deaf students – Oliver Sacks (1989, p. 127) remarked upon “an astonishing and moving experience”:

 I had never before seen an entire community of the deaf, nor had I quite realized (even though I knew this theoretically) that Sign might indeed be a complete language – a language equally suitable for making love or speeches, for flirtation or mathematics. I had to see philosophy and chemistry classes in Sign; I had to see the absolutely silent mathematics department at work; to see deaf bards, Sign poetry, on the campus, and the range and depth of the Gallaudet theatre; I had to see the wonderful social scene in the student bar, with hands flying in all directions as a hundred separate conversations proceeded – I had to see all this for myself before I could be moved from my previous “medical” view of deafness (as a “condition,” a deficit, that had to be treated) to a “cultural” view of the deaf as forming a community with a complete language and culture of its own.

In Sacks’ account, Sign language appears as a central component of Deaf culture – the core from which other cultural practices and attitudes arise. The centrality of Sign to the Deaf community is confirmed through a perusal of writings on Deaf culture: the World Federation of the Deaf describes Deaf people as “a linguistic minority” who have “a common experience of life” manifesting in “Deaf culture”.[2] Acceptance of a deaf person into the Deaf community, they continue, “is strongly linked to competence in a signed language”. In Inside Deaf Culture, Padden and Humphries (2005, p. 1) note that even though the Deaf community does not possess typical markers of culture – religion, geographical space, clothing, diet – they do possess sign language(s), which play a “central role … in the everyday lives of the community”. The British Deaf Association remarks upon Deaf people as a linguistic minority who have a “unique culture” evident in their history, tradition of visual story-telling, and the “flourishing of BSL in a range of art forms including drama, poetry, comedy and satire”.[3] Similarly, the Canadian Cultural Society of the Deaf and the American non-profit organisation Hands & Voices both describe Sign language as the core of Deaf cultural communities.[4] Sign language is central to Deaf culture and is the crux around which a sense of community can arise. This community fosters awareness of being Deaf as a positive and not a deficit state; the deaf person is frequently described as the Seeing person (distinct from the Hearing person), emphasising the visual nature of Sign language and Deaf communication.[5] Deaf culture is also supported by the existence of institutions dedicated for Deaf people such as schools, clubs, and churches. Finally, as a consequence of living in a world not always designed for them, and in the process of campaigning for their rights and the protection of their culture, Deaf people develop a sense of community and solidarity.

Even though Deaf culture differs from typical cultural communities, in its most developed form it does approach the ideal of offering its members “meaningful ways of life” across key human activities (Kymlicka 1995, p. 76). It may not be a comprehensive culture in the way that Ultra-Orthodox Jewish culture is, but its central importance to the life of some deaf people – arising in particular from learning and expressing oneself in Sign – suggests that it can be viewed as a cultural community.

If we compare Mad culture to Deaf culture we find many points of similarity. For example, like Deaf people, people who identify as Mad – at least in the English-speaking world – are united by a set of connected historical narratives, by opposition to ‘sanism’ and psychiatric coercion, and by phenomenologically related experiences (such as voices, unusual beliefs, and extremes of mood).[6] In addition, they share a tradition of producing distinctive art and literature and a concern with transforming negative perceptions in society surrounding mental health. But Mad people, unlike Deaf people, are not a linguistic community, and this does weaken the coherence of the idea that madness can constitute a culture. An alternative is to regard Mad people as forming associations within the broader cultural context in which they live, the very context they are trying to transform in such a way that allows them a better chance to thrive.

The comparisons drawn in this section cannot be the final word, as it is conceivable for different conceptions of societal culture and Mad culture to yield different conclusions. However, in what follows I shall argue that even if madness can constitute a culture, a consideration of the general justification for cultural rights leads us to social identity and not directly to culture as the key issue at stake.

 

Mohammed Abouelleil Rashed (2018)

Note: the above is an excerpt from Madness and the Demand for Recognition: A Philosophical Inquiry into Identity and Mental Health Activism (Oxford University Press, 2019).

***

[1] In Primitive Culture, Edward Tylor (1891, p. 1) provided the following definition: “culture or civilisation .. is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of a society”.

[2] Online: https://wfdeaf.org/our-work/focus-areas/deaf-culture

[3] British Sign Language. Online: https://www.bda.org.uk/what-is-deaf-culture

[4] Online: http://www.deafculturecentre.ca/Public/Default.aspx?I=294. http://www.handsandvoices.org/comcon/articles/deafculture.htm

[5] Online: http://www.handsandvoices.org/comcon/articles/deafculture.htm

[6] Sanism: discrimination and prejudice against people perceived to have, or labelled as having, a mental disorder. The equivalent term in disability activism is ableism.

A History of Mental Health Advocacy & Activism (Beginnings to 1990s)

image

  1. Early advocacy and activism

The modern consumer/service-user/survivor movement is generally considered to have begun in the 1970s in the wake of the many civil rights movements that emerged at the time.[1] The Survivors’ History Group – a group founded in April 2005 and concerned with documenting the history of the movement – traces an earlier starting point.[2] The group sees affinity between contemporary activism and earlier attempts to fight stigma, discrimination and the poor treatment of individuals variously considered to be mad, insane and, since the dominance of the medical idiom, to suffer with mental illness.[3] In their website which documents Survivor history, the timeline begins with 1373, the year the Christian mystic Margery Kempe was born. Throughout her life, Margery experienced intense voices and visions of prophets, devils, and demons. Her unorthodox behaviour and beliefs upset the Church, the public, her husband, and resulted in her restraint and imprisonment on a number of occasions. Margery wrote about her life in a book in which she recounted her spiritual experiences and the difficulties she had faced.[4]

The Survivors’ history website continues with several recorded instances of individual mis-treatment on the grounds of insanity. But the first explicit evidence of collective action and advocacy in the UK appears in 1845 in the form of the Alleged Lunatics’ Friend Society: an organisation composed of individuals most of whom had been incarcerated in madhouses and subjected to degrading treatment (Hervey 1986). For around twenty years, the Society campaigned for the rights of patients, including the right to be involved in decisions pertaining to their care and confinement. In the US, around the same time, patients committed to a New York Lunatic Asylum produced a literary magazine – The Opal – published in ten volumes between 1851 and 1860. Although this production is now seen to have painted a rather benign picture of asylum life, and to have allowed voice only to those patients who were deemed appropriate and self-censorial (Reiss 2004), glimpses of dissatisfaction and even of liberatory rhetoric emerge from some of the writing (Tenney 2006).

An important name in what can be considered early activism and advocacy is Elizabeth Packard. In 1860, Packard was committed to an insane asylum in Illinois by her husband, a strict Calvinist who could not tolerate Packard’s newly expressed liberal beliefs and her rejection of his religious views. At the time, state law gave husbands this power without the need for a public hearing. Upon her release, Packard campaigned successfully for a change in the law henceforth requiring a jury trial for decisions to commit an individual to an asylum (Dain 1989, p.9). Another important campaigner is Clifford Beers, an American ex-patient who published in 1908 his autobiography A Mind That Found Itself. Beer’s biography documented the mistreatment he experienced at a number of institutions. The following year he founded the National Committee for Mental Hygiene (NCMH), an organisation that sought to improve conditions in asylums and the treatment of patients by working with reform-minded psychiatrists. The NCMH achieved limited success in this respect, and its subsequent efforts focused on mental health education, training, and public awareness campaigns in accordance with the then dominant concept of mental hygiene (Dain 1989, p. 6).

  1. 1900s−1950s: ‘Mental Hygiene’

On both sides of the Atlantic, mental health advocacy in the first few decades of the 20th century promoted a mental hygiene agenda.[5] Mental hygiene is an American concept and was understood as “the art of preserving the mind against all incidents and influences calculated to deteriorate its qualities, impair its energies, or derange its movements” (Rossi 1962). These “incidents and influences” were conceived broadly and included “exercise, rest, food, clothing and climate, the laws of breeding, the government of the passions, the sympathy with current emotions and opinions, the discipline of the intellect”, all of which had to be governed adequately to promote a healthy mind (ibid.). With such a broad list of human affairs under their purview, the mental hygienists had to fall back on a set of values by which the ‘healthy’ life-style was to be determined. These values, as argued by Davis (1938) and more recently by Crossley (2006), were those of the educated middle classes who promoted mental hygiene in accordance with a deeply ingrained ethic. For example, extra-marital sex was seen as a deviation and therefore a potential source of mental illness. Despite this conservative element, the discourse of mental hygiene was progressive, for its time, in a number of ways: first, it considered mental illness to arise from interactions among many factors, including the biological and the social, and hence to be responsive to improvements in the person’s environment; second, it fought stigma by arguing that mental illness is similar to physical illness and can be treated; third, it promoted the prevention of mental illness, in particular through paying attention to childhood development; and fourth, it argued for the importance of early detection and treatment (Crossley 2006, pp. 71-75).

In the US, Clifford Beer’s own group, the NCMH, continued to advance a mental hygiene agenda and, in 1950, merged with two other groups to form the National Association for Mental Health, a non-profit organisation that exists since 2006 as Mental Health America.[6] In the UK, mental hygiene was promoted by three inter-war groups that campaigned for patient wellbeing and education of the public. These groups merged, in 1946, to form the National Association for Mental Health (NAMH), which later, in 1972, changed its name to Mind, the name under which it remains to this day as a well-known and influential charity.[7] In the late 50s, these two groups continued to educate the public through various campaigns and publications, and were involved in training mental health professionals in accordance with hygienist principles. In addition, they were advocates for mental patients, campaigning for the government to improve commitment laws, and, in the UK, working with the government to instate the move from asylums to ‘care in the community’.

Even though the discourse of mental hygiene was dominant during these decades, the developments that were to come in the early 70s were already taking shape in the emerging discourse of civil rights. A good example of these developments in the UK is the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), better known today as Liberty. Founded in 1934 in response to an aggressive police reaction to protestors during the “hunger marches”, it became involved in 1947 in its first “mental health case”: a woman wrongly detained in a mental health institution for what appeared to be ‘moral’ rather than ‘medical’ reasons.[8] During the 50s, the NCCL campaigned vigorously for reform of mental health law to address this issue, and was able to see some positive developments in 1959 with the abolition of the problematic 1913 Mental Deficiency Act and the introduction of tribunals in which patients’ interests were represented.

  1. 1960s: The ‘Anti-psychiatrists’

During the 1960s criticism of mental health practices and theories was carried through by a number of psychiatrists who came to be referred to as the ‘anti-psychiatrists’. Most famous among them were Thomas Szasz, R. D. Laing, and David Cooper. Szasz (1960) famously argued that mental illness is a myth that legitimizes state oppression (via the psychiatric enterprise) on those judged as socially deviant and perceived to be a danger to themselves or others. Mental illnesses for Szasz are problems in living: morally and existentially significant problems relating to social interaction and to finding meaning and purpose in life. Laing (1965, 1967) considered the medical concept of schizophrenia to be a label applied to those whose behaviour seems incomprehensible, thereby permitting exercises of power. For Laing (1967, p. 106) the people so labelled are not so much experiencing a breakdown but a breakthrough: a state of ego-loss that permits a wider range of experiences and may culminate in a “new-ego” and an “existential rebirth”. These individuals require guidance and encouragement, and not the application of a psychiatric label that distorts and arrests this process. David Cooper (1967, 1978) considered ‘schizophrenia’ a revolt against alienating familial and social structures with the hope of finding a less-alienating, autonomous yet recognised existence. In Cooper’s (1978, p. 156) view, it is precisely this revolt that the ‘medical apparatus’, as an agent of the ‘State’, aims to suppress.

From the perspective of those individuals who have experienced psychiatric treatment and mental distress, the anti-psychiatrists of the 1960s were not activists but dissident mental health professionals. As will be noted in the following section, the mental patients’ liberation movement did not support the inclusion  of sympathetic professionals within its ambit. Nevertheless, the ideas of Thomas Szasz, R. D. Laing, and David Cooper were frequently used by activists themselves to ground their critique of mental health institutions and the medical model. At the time, these ideas were radical if not revolutionary, and it is not surprising that they inspired activists engaged in civil rights struggles in the 1970s.

  1. The 1970s civil rights movements

Civil rights activism in mental health began through the work of a number of groups that came together in the late 60s and early 70s in the wake of the emerging successes and struggles of Black, Gay and women civil rights activists. In the UK, a notable group was the Mental Patients’ Union (1972), and in the US three groups were among the earliest organisers: Insane Liberation Front (1970), Mental Patients’ Liberation Front (1971), and Network Against Psychiatric Assault (1972).[9] An important difference between these groups and earlier ones that may have also pursued a civil rights agenda such as the NCCL, is that they, from the start or early on, excluded sympathetic mental-health professionals and were composed solely of patients and ex-patients. Judi Chamberlin (1990, p. 324), a key figure in the American movement, justified it in this way:

Among the major organising principles of [black, gay, women’s liberation movements] were self-definition and self-determination. Black people felt that white people could not truly understand their experiences … To mental patients who began to organise, these principles seemed equally valid. Their own perceptions about “mental illness” were diametrically opposed to those of the general public, and even more so to those of mental health professionals. It seemed sensible, therefore, not to let non-patients into ex-patient organisations or to permit them to dictate an organisation’s goals.

The extent of the resolve to exclude professionals – even those who would appear to be sympathetic such as the anti-psychiatrists – is evident in the writings of Chamberlin as well as in the founding document of the Mental Patients’ Union. Both distance themselves from anti-psychiatry on the grounds that the latter is “an intellectual exercise of academics and dissident mental health professionals” which, while critical of psychiatry, did not include ex-patients or engage their struggles (Chamberlin 1990, p. 323).[10] Further, according to Chamberlin, a group that permits non-patients and professionals inevitably abandons its liberatory intentions and ends up in the weaker position of attempting to reform psychiatry. And reform was not on the agenda of these early groups.

On the advocacy front, the mental patients’ liberation movement – the term generally used to refer to this period of civil rights activism – sought to end psychiatry as they knew it.[11] They sought to abolish involuntary hospitalisation and forced treatment, to prioritise freedom of choice and consent above other considerations, to reject the reductive medical model, to restore full civil rights to mental patients including the right to refuse treatment, and to counter negative perceptions in the media such as the inherent dangerousness of the ‘mentally ill’. In addition to advocacy, a great deal of work went into setting up non-hierarchical, non-coercive alternatives to mental health institutions such as self-help groups, drop-in centres, and retreats.[12] The purpose of these initiatives was not only to provide support to individuals in distress, but to establish that mental patients are self-reliant and able to manage their own lives outside of mental health institutions. Central to the success of these initiatives was a radical transformation in how ex-patients understood their situation. This transformation was referred to as consciousness-raising.

Borrowed from the women’s liberation movement, consciousness-raising is the process of placing elements of one’s situation in the wider context of systematic social oppression (Chamberlin 1990). This begins to occur in meetings in which people get together and share their experiences, identifying commonalities, and re-interpreting them in a way that gives them broader meaning and significance. An implication of this process is that participants may be able to reverse an internalised sense of weakness or incapability – which hitherto they may have regarded as natural – and regain confidence in their abilities. In the mental patients’ liberation movement, consciousness-raising involved ridding oneself of the central assumptions of the ‘mental health system’: that one has an illness, and that the medical profession is there to provide a cure. In the discourse of the time, inspired by the writings of Thomas Szasz and others, psychiatry was a form of social control, medicalising unwanted behaviour as a pre-text for ‘treating’ it and forcing individuals into a sane way of behaving. By sharing experiences, participants begin to see that the mental health system has not helped them. In a book first published in 1977 and considered a founding and inspirational document for mental health activists, Chamberlin (1988, pp. 70-71) writes of the important insights ex-patients gained through consciousness-raising:

Consciousness-raising … helps people to see that their so called symptoms are indications of real problems. The anger, which has been destructively turned inward, is freed by this recognition. Instead of believing that they have a defect in their psychic makeup (or their neurochemical system), participants learn to recognise the oppressive conditions in their daily lives.

Mental suffering and distress, within this view, are a normal response to the difficulties individuals face in life such as relationship problems, social inequality, poverty, loss and trauma. In such situations, individuals need a sympathetic, caring and understanding response, and not the one society offers in the form of psychotropic drugs and the difficult environment of a mental health hospital (Chamberlin 1988).  Consciousness-raising does not stop at the ‘mental health system’, and casts a wider net that includes all discriminatory stereotypes against ex-patients. In a deliberate analogy with racism and sexism, Chamberlin uses the term mentalism to refer to the widespread social tendency to call disapproved of behaviour ‘sick’ or ‘crazy’. Mental patients’ liberation required of patients and ex-patients to resist the ‘mental health system’ as well as social stereotyping, and to find the strength and confidence to do so. In this context, voluntary alternatives by and for patients and ex-patients were essential to providing a forum for support and consciousness-raising.

  1. Consumers/Service-Users & Survivors

In the 1980s, the voices of advocates and activists began to be recognised by national government agencies and bodies. This was in the context of a shift towards market approaches to health-care provision, and the idea of the patient as a consumer of services (Campbell 2009). Patients and ex-patients – now referred to as consumers (US) or users (UK) of services – were able to sit in policy meetings and advisory committees of mental health services and make their views known. Self-help groups, which normally struggled for funding, began to be supported by public money. In the US, a number of consumer groups formed that were no longer opposed to the medical model or to working with mental health professionals in order to reform services.[13] While some considered these developments to be positive, others regarded them as indicating what Linda Morrison, an American activist and academic, referred to as a “crisis of co-optation”: the voice of mental health activists had to become acceptable to funding agencies, which required relinquishing radical demands in favour of reform (Morrison 2005, p. 80). Some activists rejected the term consumer as it implied that patients and professionals were in an equal relation, with patients free to determine the services they receive (Chamberlin 1988, p. vii).[14]

Countering the consumer/user discourse was an emerging survivor discourse reflected in a number of national groups, for example the National Association of Psychiatric Survivors (1985) in the US and Survivors Speak Out (1986) in the UK. Survivor discourse shared many points of alignment with earlier activism, but whereas the latter was opposed to including professionals and non-patients, survivors were no longer against this as long as it occurred within a framework of genuine and honest partnership and inclusion in all aspects of service structure, delivery and evaluation (Chamberlin 1995, Campbell 1992). [15]

In the US, developments throughout the 1990s and into the millennium confirm the continuation of these two trends: the first oriented towards consumer discourse and involvement, and the second towards survivors, with a relatively more radical tone and a concern with human rights (Morrison 2005). Today, representative national groups for these two trends include, respectively, the National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery (NCMHR), and Mind Freedom International (MFI).[16] The former is focused on promoting comprehensive recovery, approvingly quoting the ‘New Freedom Mental Health Commission Report’ target of a “future when everyone with mental illness will recover”.[17] To this end they campaign for better services, for consumers to have a voice in their recovery, for tackling stigma, discrimination, and promoting community inclusion via consumer-run initiatives that offer assistance with education, housing and other aspects of life. On the other hand, MFI state their vision to be a “nonviolent revolution in mental health care”. Unlike NCMHR, MFI do not use the language of ‘mental illness’, and support campaigns such as Creative Maladjustment, Mad Pride, and Boycott Normal. Further, MFI state emphatically that they are completely independent and do not receive funds from or have any links with government, drug companies or mental health agencies.[18] Despite their differences, both organisations claim to represent both survivors and consumers, and both trace their beginnings to the 1970s civil rights movements. But whereas NCMHR refer to ‘consumers’ always first and generally more often, MFI do the opposite and state that the majority of their members identify as psychiatric survivors.

In the UK, the service-user/survivor movement – as it came to be referred to – is today represented nationally by a number of groups.[19] Of note is the National Survivor User Network (NSUN) which brings together survivor and user groups and individuals across the UK in order to strengthen their voice and assist with policy change.[20] Another long-standing group (1990), though less active today, is the UK Advocacy Network, a group which campaigns for user led advocacy and involvement in mental health services planning and delivery.[21] A UK survey done in 2003 brings some complexity to this appearance of a homogenous movement (Wallcraft et al. 2003). While most respondents agreed that there is a national user/survivor movement – albeit a rather loose one – different opinions arose on all the important issues; for example, disagreements over whether compulsory treatment can ever be justified, and whether receiving funds from drug companies compromises the movement. In addition, there were debates over the legitimacy of the medical model, with some respondents rejecting it in favour of social and political understandings of mental distress. In this context, they drew a distinction between the service-user movement and the survivor movement, the former concerned with improving services, and the latter with challenging the medical model and the “supposed scientific basis of mental health services” (Wallcraft et al. 2003, p. 50). More radical voices suggested that activists who continued to adopt the medical model have not been able to rid themselves of the disempowering frameworks of understanding imposed by the mental health system. In a similar vein, some respondents noted the de-politicisation of the movement, as activists ceased to be primarily concerned with civil rights and began to work for the mental health system (Wallcraft et al. 2003, p. 14).

In summary, there exists within the consumer/service-user/survivor movements in the US and the UK a variety of stances in relation to involuntary detention and treatment, acceptable sources of funding, the medical model, and the extent and desirability of user involvement in services. Positions range from working for mental health institutions and reforming them from the ‘inside’, to rejecting any co-operation and engaging in activism to end what is considered psychiatric abuse and social discrimination in the guise of supposed medical theory and treatment. It appears that within national networks and movements pragmatic and co-operative approaches are more common, with radical positions pushed somewhat aside though by no means silenced. In this context Mad Pride, representing the latest wave of activism in mental health, re-invigorates the radicalism of the movement and makes the most serious demand yet of social norms and understandings. But Mad Pride, underpinned by the notions of Mad culture and Mad identity, builds on the accomplishments of Survivor identity to which I now briefly turn.

  1. Survivor identity

The connotations of survivor discourse are unmistakable and powerful. With survivor discourse the term ‘patient’ and its implications of dependence and weakness are finally discarded (Crossley 2004, p.169). From the perspective of those individuals who embraced the discourse, there is much that they have survived: forced detention in the mental health system; aggressive and unhelpful treatments; discrimination and stigma in society; and, for some, the distress and suffering they experienced and which was labelled by others ‘mental illness’. By discarding of what they came to see as an imposed identity – viz. ‘patient’ – survivors took one further step towards increased self-definition (Crossley 2006, p. 182). Further, the very term ‘survivor’ implies a positive angle to this definition in so far as to survive something implies resilience, strength, and other personal traits considered valuable. Morrison (2005, p. 102) describes it as the “heroic survivor narrative” and accords it a central function in the creation of a collective identity for the movement and a shared sense of injustice.

Central to survivor identity is the importance of the voice of survivors, and their ability to tell their own stories, a voice which neither society nor the psychiatric system respected. The well-known British activist and poet Peter Campbell (1992, p. 122) writes that a great part of the “damage” sustained in the psychiatric system

has been a result of psychiatry’s refusal to give value to my personal perceptions and experience … I cannot believe it is possible to dismiss as meaningless people’s most vivid and challenging interior experiences and expect no harm to ensue.

The emphasis on survivor voice highlights one further difference from 1970s activism: whereas earlier activists sustained their critique of psychiatry by drawing upon the writings of Szasz, Goffman, Marx and others, survivor discourse eschewed such sources of ‘authority’ in favour of the voice of survivors themselves; Crossley (2004, p. 167) writes:

Survivors have been able to convert their experiences of mental distress and (mis)treatment into a form of cultural and symbolic capital. The disvalued status of the patient is reversed within the movement context. Therein it constitutes authority to speak and vouches for authenticity. The experience of both distress and treatment, stigmatized elsewhere, has become recognized as a valuable, perhaps superior knowledge base. Survivors have laid a claim, recognized at least within the movement itself, to know ‘madness’ and its ‘treatment’ with authority, on the basis that they have been there and have survived it.

Survivors are therefore experts on their own experiences, and experts on what it is like to be subject to treatment in mental health institutions and to face stigma and discrimination in society. So construed, to survive is to be able to emerge from a range of difficulties, some of which are external and others internal, belonging to the condition (the distress, the experiences) that led to the encounter with psychiatry in the first place. In this sense, survivor discourse had not yet been able to impose a full reversal of the negative value attached to phenomena of madness, a value reflected in the language of mental illness, disorder and pathology. This is clearly evident in the idea that one had survived the condition, for if that is the attitude one holds towards it, it is unlikely that the ‘condition’ is looked upon positively or neutrally (except perhaps teleologically in the sense that it had had a formative influence on one’s personality). Similarly, if one considers oneself to have survived mental health institutions rather than the condition, there still is no direct implication that the condition itself is regarded in a non-negative light, only that the personal traits conducive to survival are laudable. It is only with the discourse of Mad Pride, yet to come, that the language of mental illness and the social norms and values underpinning it are challenged in an unambiguous manner.

Mohammed Abouelleil Rashed (2018)

Note: the above is an excerpt from Madness and the Demand for Recognition: A Philosophical Inquiry into Identity and Mental Health Activism (Oxford University Press, 2019).

***

[1] The following account outlines key moments, figures, groups and strategies in mental health advocacy and activism; it is not intended to be exhaustive but rather to illustrate the background to the Mad Pride movement and discourse.

[2] The timeline can be found at: http://studymore.org.uk/mpu.htm. (The website states that Survivor history is being compiled into a book.) See also Campbell and Roberts (2009).

[3] In contrast to Survivor history, there is a tradition of historical and critical writing on the history of ‘psychiatry’ and ‘madness’, and on the development of lunacy reform and mental health law. Notable names in this tradition are Roy Porter, Andrew Scull, and Michel Foucault.

[4] See Peterson (1982, pp. 3-18).

[5] This section benefits, in part, from Crossley’s (2006, Chapter 4) account of mental hygiene.

[6] Mental Health America. Online: http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/

[7] Mind. Online: http://www.mind.org.uk/

[8] The history of Liberty can be found on their website: https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/who-we-are/history/liberty-timeline

[9] In the US, groups were able to communicate with each other through a regular newsletter, Madness Network News (1972-1986), and an annual Conference on Human Rights and Against Psychiatric Oppression (1973-1985).

[10] For a similar point see the founding document of the Mental Patients’ Union, reprinted in Curtis et al. (2000, pp. 23-28).

[11] Some activists referred to themselves as ‘psychiatric inmates’ or ‘ex-inmates’ highlighting the fact of their incarceration in mental institutions and their rejection of the connotations of the term ‘patient’. This early difference in terminology – inmate versus patient – prefigures the multiplicity of terms and associated strategies that will come to define activism and advocacy in mental health to this day.

[12] The earliest example of a self-help group is WANA (We Are Not Alone). Formed in New York in the 1940s as a patient-run group, it developed into a major psychosocial rehabilitation centre, eventually to be managed by mental health professionals (see Chamberlin 1988, pp. 94-95).

[13] See Bluebird’s History of the Consumer/Survivor Movement. Online: https://www.power2u.org/downloads/HistoryOfTheConsumerMovement.pdf

[14] Mclean (1995, p. 1054) draws the distinction between consumers and survivors as follows: “Persons who identify themselves as ‘consumers’, ‘clients’ or ‘patients’, tend to accept the medical model of mental illness and traditional mental health treatment practices, but work for general system improvement and for the addition of consumer controlled alternatives. Those who refer to themselves as ‘ex-patients’, ‘survivors’ or ‘ex-inmates’ reject the medical model of mental illness, professional control and forced treatment and seek alternatives exclusively in user controlled centres.”

[15] Consumers and survivors aside, more radical voices persisted, continuing the discourse and activities of the 1970s’ groups. These voices were vehemently opposed to psychiatry and rejected any cooperation with services or with advocates/activists who tended towards reform. Examples include the Network to Abolish Psychiatry (1986) in the US and Campaign Against Psychiatric Oppression (CAPO, 1985) in the UK, both of which were active for a few years in the 1980s. (CAPO was an offshoot of the earlier Mental Patients’ Union.) For these groups, the ‘mental health system’ was intrinsically oppressive and had to be abolished: attempts to reform it, merely strengthened it (see Madness Network News, Summer 1986, vol.8, no.3, p.8). Reflecting on the beginnings of Survivors Speak Out (SSO, 1986), Peter Campbell, a founder, wrote that CAPO and other “separatist” groups were more concerned with “philosophical and ideological issues” and that SSO was “born partly in reaction to this: they were the first part of the ‘pragmatic’ wing which now dominates the user movement” with an emphasis on dialogue with others (Peter Campbell on The History and Philosophy of The Survivor Movement. Southwark Mind Newsletter, issue 24 – year not specified).

[16] Note that the reference here is to national networks and groups and not the local groups engaged in self-help, support, education, training, and advocacy of which there are hundreds in the US, UK and elsewhere.

[17] National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery. Online: http://www.ncmhr.org/purpose.htm

[18] Mind Freedom International. Online: http://www.mindfreedom.org/mfi-faq

[19] National organisations are of two types: those concerned with mental health generally (discussed in the text), and those with a focus on a particular condition or behaviour such as the Hearing Voices Network and the National Self-Harm network.

[20] National Survivor User Network. Online: https://www.nsun.org.uk/our-vision

[21] UK Advocacy Network. Online: http://www.u-kan.co.uk/mission.html

In Defense of Madness: The Problem of Disability

By developing a perspective on the social model of disability and by appealing to the concept of intelligiblity, I respond to arguments against Mad Pride activism. You can access the articlm_covere HERE.

The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Volume 44, Issue 2, April 2019, Pages 150–174, https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhy016

 

Abstract: At a time when different groups in society are achieving notable gains in respect and rights, activists in mental health and proponents of mad positive approaches, such as Mad Pride, are coming up against considerable challenges. A particular issue is the commonly held view that madness is inherently disabling and cannot form the grounds for identity or culture. This paper responds to the challenge by developing two bulwarks against the tendency to assume too readily the view that madness is inherently disabling: the first arises from the normative nature of disability judgments, and the second arises from the implications of political activism in terms of being a social subject. In the process of arguing for these two bulwarks, the paper explores the basic structure of the social model of disability in the context of debates on naturalism and normativism, the applicability of the social model to madness, and the difference between physical and mental disabilities in terms of the unintelligibility often attributed to the latter.

 

Mohammed Abouelleil Rashed, In Defense of Madness: The Problem of Disability, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Volume 44, Issue 2, April 2019, Pages 150–174, https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhy016

More Things in Heaven and Earth

cropped-img_6448.jpg

For a few months in 2009 and 2010 I was a resident of Mut, a small town in the Dakhla Oasis in the Western desert of Egypt. My aim was to become acquainted with the social institution of spirit possession, and with sorcery and Qur’anic healing (while keeping an eye on how all of this intersects with ‘mental disorder’ and ‘madness’). I learnt many things, among which was the normalness with which spirit possession was apprehended in the community: people invoked spirits to explain a slight misfortune as much as a life- changing event; to make sense of what we would refer to as ‘schizophrenia’, and to make sense of a passing dysphoria. It was part of everyday life. The way in which spirit possession cut across these diverse areas of life got me thinking about the broader role it plays in preserving meaning when things go wrong. To help me think these issues through I brought in the concepts of ‘intentionality’ and ‘personhood’. The result is my essay More Things in Heaven and Earth: Spirit Possession, Mental Disorder, and Intentionality (2018, open access at the Journal of Medical Humanities).

The essay is a philosophical exploration of a range of concepts and how they relate to each other. It appeals sparingly, though decisively, to the ethnography that I had conducted at Dakhla. If you want to know more about the place and the community you can check these blog-posts:

The Dakhla Diaries (1) : Fast to Charing-X, Slow to Hell

The Dakhla Oasis: Stories from the ‘field’ (0)

The Dakhla Diaries (3): Wedding Invitation

Old Mut, Dakhla

The Dakhla Oasis: Stories from the ‘field’ (I)

And this is a piece I published in the newspaper Al-Ahram Weekly (2009) voicing my view on some of the practices that I had observed: To Untie or Knot

 

The Identity of Psychiatry in the Aftermath of Mad Activism

[Introduction to an essay I am working on for a special issue of the Journal of Medicine & Philosophy with the title ‘The Crisis in Psychiatric Science’]

581805_10151341450506409_318871042_n
281.full

THE IDENTITY OF PSYCHIATRY IN THE AFTERMATH OF MAD ACTIVISM

  1. INTRODUCTION

 Psychiatry has an identity in the sense that it is constituted by certain understandings of what it is and what it is for. The key element in this identity, and the element from where other features arise, is that psychiatry is a medical speciality. Upon completion of their medical education and during the early years of their training, medical students – now budding doctors – make a choice about the speciality they want to pursue. Psychiatry is one of them, and so is ophthalmology, cardiology, gynaecology, and paediatrics. Modern medical specialities share some fundamental features: they treat conditions, disorders, or diseases; they aspire to be evidence-based in the care and treatments they offer; they are grounded in basic sciences such as physiology, anatomy, histology, and biochemistry; and they employ technology in investigations, research, and development of treatments. All of this ought to occur (and in the best of cases does occur) in a holistic manner, taking account of the whole person and not just of an isolated organ or a system; i.e. person-centred medicine (e.g. Cox, Campbell, and Fulford 2007). In addition, it is increasingly recognised that the arts and humanities have a role to play in medical education, training, and practice. Literature, theatre, film, history, and the various arts, it is argued, can help develop the capacity for good judgement, and can broaden the ability of clinicians to understand and empathise with patients (e.g. Cook 2010, McManus 1995). None of the above, I will assume in this essay, is particularly controversial.

Even though psychiatry is a medical speciality, it is a special medical speciality. This arises from its subject matter, ordinarily conceived of as mental health conditions or disorders, to be contrasted with physical health conditions or disorders. Psychiatry deals with the mind not working as it should while ophthalmology, for example, deals with the ophthalmic system not working as it should. The nature of its subject matter raises certain complexities for psychiatry that, in extreme, are sometimes taken to suggest that psychiatry’s positioning as a medical speciality is suspect; these include the normative nature of psychiatric judgements, the explanatory limitations of psychiatric theories, and the classificatory inaccuracies that beset the discipline.[1] Another challenge to psychiatry’s identity as a medical speciality comes from particular approaches in mental health activism. Mad Pride and mad-positive activism (henceforth Mad activism) rejects the language of ‘mental illness’ and ‘mental disorder’, and rejects the assumption that people have a ‘condition’ that is the subject of treatment. The idea that medicine treats ‘things’ that people ‘have’ is fundamental to medical practice and theory and hence is fundamental to psychiatry in so far as it wishes to continue understanding itself as a branch of medicine. Mad activism, therefore, challenges psychiatry’s identity as a medical speciality.

In this essay, I argue that among these four challenges, only the fourth requires of psychiatry to rethink its identity. By contrast, as I demonstrate in section 2, neither the normative, nor the explanatory, or the classificatory complexities undermine psychiatry’s identity as a medical speciality. This is primarily for the reason that the aforementioned complexities obtain in medicine as a whole, and are not unique to psychiatry even if they are more common and intractable. On the other hand, the challenge of Mad activism is a serious problem. In order to understand what the challenge amounts to, I develop in section 3 the notion of the hypostatic abstraction, a logical and semantic operation which I consider to lie at the heart of medical practice and theory. It distinguishes medicine from other social institutions concerned with human suffering such as religious and some therapeutic institutions. In section 4 I demonstrate how Mad activism challenges the hypostatic abstraction. And in section 5 I discuss a range of ways in which psychiatry can respond to this challenge, and the modifications to its identity that may be necessary.

[1] These are not the only complexities; there are, for example, well-known difficulties and controversies surrounding the efficacy and risks of anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medication. In addition, psychiatry faces distinctive ethical complexities arising from the fact that mental health patients can be particularly vulnerable which raises questions of capacity not ordinarily raised in other medical specialities (see Radden and Sadler 2010).

 

Madness & the Demand for Recognition

mandess cover

After four years of (almost) continuous work, I have finally completed my book:

Madness and the Demand for Recognition: A Philosophical Inquiry into Identity and Mental Health Activism.

You can find the book at the Oxford University Press website and at Amazon.com. A preview with the table of contents, foreword, preface, and introduction is here.

Madness is a complex and contested term. Through time and across cultures it has acquired many formulations: for some, madness is synonymous with unreason and violence, for others with creativity and subversion, elsewhere it is associated with spirits and spirituality. Among the different formulations, there is one in particular that has taken hold so deeply and systematically that it has become the default view in many communities around the world: the idea that madness is a disorder of the mind.

Contemporary developments in mental health activism pose a radical challenge to psychiatric and societal understandings of madness. Mad Pride and mad-positive activism reject the language of mental ‘illness’ and ‘disorder’, reclaim the term ‘mad’, and reverse its negative connotations. Activists seek cultural change in the way madness is viewed, and demand recognition of madness as grounds for identity. But can madness constitute such grounds? Is it possible to reconcile delusions, passivity phenomena, and the discontinuity of self often seen in mental health conditions with the requirements for identity formation presupposed by the theory of recognition? How should society respond?

Guided by these questions, this book is the first comprehensive philosophical examination of the claims and demands of Mad activism. Locating itself in the philosophy of psychiatry, Mad studies, and activist literatures, the book develops a rich theoretical framework for understanding, justifying, and responding to Mad activism’s demand for recognition.

 

In Defence of Madness: The Problem of Disability

My essay, about to be published in the Journal of Medicine & Philosophy.

I write defending mad positive approaches against the tendency to adopt a medical view of the limitations associated with madness. Unlike most debates that deal with similar issues – for example the debate between critical psychiatrists and biological psychiatrists, or between proponents of the social model of disability versus those who endorse the medical model of disability – my essay is not a polemical adoption of one or other side, but a philosophical examination of how we can talk about disability in general, and madness in particular.

You can read the essay here: IN DEFENCE OF MADNESS

And here is the abstract: At a time when different groups in society are achieving notable gains in respect and rights, activists in mental health and proponents of mad positive approaches, such as Mad Pride, are coming up against considerable challenges. A particular issue is the commonly held view that madness is inherently disabling and cannot form the grounds for identity or culture. This paper responds to the challenge by developing two bulwarks against the tendency to assume too readily the view that madness is inherently disabling: the first arises from the normative nature of disability judgements, and the second from the implications of political activism in terms of being a social subject. In the process of arguing for these two bulwarks, the paper explores the basic structure of the social model of disability in the context of debates on naturalism and normativism; the applicability of the social model to madness; and the difference between physical and mental disabilities in terms of the unintelligibility often attributed to the latter

Beyond Dysfunction: Distress & the Distinction Between Social Deviance & Mental Disorder

Over the course of last year I have been working on a small project with Rachel Bingham examining the possibility of distinguishing ‘social deviance’ from ‘mental disorder’ in light of recent work on concepts of health. The result was an essay published recently in the journal Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology (21:3-September 2014).

Johanna Moncrieff and Dan Stein wrote commentaries on our essay to which we responded in a short piece published in the same issue with the original essay.

In our response to Moncrieff and Stein we found it necessary to point out that in the writings of some critical psychiatrists and psychologists there is a problematic conflation of empirical with conceptual issues in relation to ‘mental disorder’. That section is reproduced below. Note that Criterion E is the final clause in the DSM definition of mental disorder. It states that a mental disorder must not solely be a result of social deviance or conflicts with society.

Mental Disorder: Separating Empirical From Conceptual Considerations

Let us begin by revisiting the conceptual basis of attributions of mental disorder. Criterion E is not, as we argued with Stein et al. (2010, 1765), conceptually necessary, but is of ethical and political importance given the historical context. Thus, notwithstanding the other criteria, a condition can only be considered for candidacy for mental disorder if “dysfunction” is present. What is a dysfunction? As Moncrieff puts it, there is a tautology in the definition of mental disorder where it is stated that a mental disorder reflects an “underlying psychobiological dysfunction” (Moncreiff 2014). Moncrieff argues that this is flawed because underlying processes have not been established, which renders the definition tantamount to saying that a dysfunction is a reflection of a dysfunction: a definition that adds nothing to our knowledge.

Here Moncrieff follows Thomas Szasz in finding a lack of resemblance to physical disorder to be the primary problem with the concept of mental disorder (see Fulford et al. 2013).1 In pursuing this, the critical psychiatrist not only fails to see the complexity of the concept of physical disorder, but also commits the same error as the biological psychiatrist. The latter implies that an ever longer awaited complete neurochemistry of mental health conditions would solve the conceptual problems. The former—the critical psychiatrist—implies the converse; that the absence of proof for the “existence of separate and distinct foundational processes,” as Moncrieff (2014) puts it, proves that mental health conditions are not disorders. As we have argued elsewhere, identifying the biological basis for a set of behaviors or symptoms does not in itself pick out what is pathological or disordered: for example, a complete description of the neurochemical states governing sexuality would not permit the inference that homosexuality is a disorder, any more than discovery of the neural correlates of falling in love or criminality would make these mental illnesses (Bingham and Banner 2012). Neurobiological changes—their presence or their absence—tells us about conditions when we find them by other means, but it does not tell us what is or is not a disorder. The same arguments could be run for underlying psychological processes. Consequently, emphasis on scientific progress or failure to progress in understanding the neurobiological correlates of mental health conditions does little to advance the conceptual debates, a point that may help to explain the impasse in the ongoing exchange between critical and biological psychiatrists.

Thus, although Moncrieff is right in pointing out that the term ‘dysfunction’ is redundant in the definition of mental disorder, she is wrong about the reason why this is so. It is not, as she claims, due to the point that no “separate and distinct foundational processes” (2014) that can ground dysfunction have been discovered empirically. After all, this leaves her open to the simple response that they actually have been, a response many biological psychiatrists do offer. The redundancy of the term ‘dysfunction’ in the definition of mental disorder is a result of conceptual analysis (and not empirical evidence), whereby it has not proven possible to define dysfunction in a way that excludes values. Here, we follow Derek Bolton in the view that once we “give up trying to conceptually locate a natural fact of the matter [dysfunction] that underlies illness attribution… then we are left trying to make the whole story run on the basis of something like ‘distress and impairment of functioning’” (2010, 332). We are left then with those things that matter in real life, the reasons that lead to healthcare being sought: usually the presence of significant distress and disability.

This is what the terms ‘dysfunction’ and ‘mental disorder’ pick out once we achieve some clarity on their referents. Stein is clearly aware of the problems inherent in defining dysfunction. However, somewhat surprisingly, the assumption that we can talk of ‘dysfunction’ over and above experienced factors (distress and disability in particular) arises through Stein’s commentary. In other words, although Stein has acknowledged the conceptual problem, in places he still writes as if there were a clear definition of dysfunction, without telling us what this would be. For example, he describes “situations when there is evidence of dysfunction, but an absence of distress and/or impairment” and gives the example of tic disorders which have no “clinical criterion (emphasizing distress and/or impairment)” (Stein 2014). We would argue that, despite the lack of explicit acknowledgement in DSM, tic disorders enter the manual because of their association with clinically significant distress and disability. It is important to avoid confusing the empirical questions (e.g., Why do people have tics? Can people have tics and not be distressed?) with the conceptual questions (e.g., When is a tic a disorder? Can tics be disorders if they do not cause distress or impairment?).

A further potential pitfall is to conflate the technical use of ‘dysfunction’ with the ordinary use of that term. This might occur where, on the one hand, we perceive a ‘dysfunction’ but on the other hand we are unable to say what the dysfunction consists of. When Moncrieff writes that dysfunction and distress are not co-extant, because, “people may neglect themselves and act in other ways that compromise their safety and survival without necessarily being distressed,” she is offering a description of behavior many would consider ‘dysfunctional’ in the lay sense (2014). Considered as a basis for conceptual analysis, however, this does not illuminate any “underlying psychobiological dysfunction”, which previous definitions aspired to do. Indeed, it is somewhat surprising that Moncrieff provides this counterexample rather than sticking to her argument that dysfunction in fact does not exist. In citing safety and survival, Moncrieff’s phrase does resemble the evolutionary theoretic approach (notably described in Wakefield’s Harmful Dysfunction Analysis), which as has been discussed widely elsewhere and noted in our paper, has fallen out of favor owing to problems with evolutionary theory specifically and naturalistic definitions in general. What of importance is left in Moncrieff’s putative definition if not underlying psychobiological and evolutionary dysfunction? We would argue: only the harm or threat of harm experienced by the individual, whether that harm is cashed out as distress and disability or as some other similar negatively evaluated experienced factor.

Response to the commentary on ‘A Critical Perspective on Second-order Empathy’: Phenomenological psychopathology must come to terms with the nature of its enterprise as a formalisation of folk-psychology (and the permeation of this enterprise with ethics)

[A response to the commentary by Jann Schlimme, Osborne Wiggins, and Michael Schwartz on my essay published in Theoretical Medicine Bioethics, April 2015 (36/2).]

In a recent polemic against certain increasingly dominant strands of phenomenological psychopathology, I launched a critique of the concept of ‘second-order’ empathy. This concept has been proposed by prominent psychopathologists and philosophers of psychiatry, including Giovanni Stanghellini, Mathew Ratcliffe, Louis Sass and others, as a sophisticated advancement over ‘ordinary’ or ‘first-order’ empathy. The authors argue that this concept allows us to refute Jaspers’ claim that certain psychopathological phenomena are un-understandable, by demonstrating that theoretical sophistication allows a ‘take’ on the these phenomena that reveals them as meaningful in the context of the person’s ‘life-world’. In my essay I argued that, given its philosophical commitments, the second-order empathic stance is incoherent, and given the constraints it places on the possibility of recognitive justice, it is unethical. The commentators take issue with both these points, to which I now respond.

First critique: ‘Psychopathology is not first philosophy’

In a succinct yet accurate summary of the first part of my argument the commentators write:

Rashed first addresses the issue of the feasibility of psychopathologists engaging in second-order empathy with persons with psychotic experiences/schizophrenia … [He] marshals textual evidence that psychopathologists can only make their case for second-order empathy by showing that it requires the performance of the Husserlian ‘phenomenological [transcendental] reduction’. Then, by citing phenomenologists such as Merleau-Ponty, as well as developing his own arguments, Rashed maintains that phenomenologists themselves do not agree that the phenomenological reduction is even possible. Assuming now that this conflicting reasoning demonstrates the impossibility of performing Husserl’s reduction, Rashed concludes that second-order empathy is impossible (because such empathy presupposes the successful performance of an impossible reduction).

Now their critique: the commentators begin by pointing out that the “‘transcendental reduction’ is designed to reach the level of a ‘transcendental consciousness’, which is the subject matter for a ‘first philosophy’ (namely, transcendental phenomenology) [that] can supply the foundation for all of knowledge”, a characterisation with which I am in agreement. I would go further and state that I consider, together with a long line of modern philosophers from Hegel to Wittgenstein, that such a project cannot work: we cannot get behind knowledge in order to establish the grounds for certainty of knowledge. As Hegel put it in his Logic, to aim to investigate knowledge prior to attempts to know the world is “to seek to know before we know [which] is as absurd as the wise resolution of Scholasticus, not to venture into the water until he had learned to swim”. The commentators then go on to state, in criticism of my essay, that psychopathology is not ‘first philosophy’. To examine, as I do, the “quarrels among phenomenological philosophers about the founding level of phenomenological inquiry” and the possibility of the transcendental reduction, is to burden psychopathology with irrelevant problems. Hence, they write, psychopathologists “can breathe a deep sigh of relief”. I suggest they hold their breath. Psychopathology is not ‘first philosophy’ – I whole heartedly agree with this statement – but in order to establish its basis and validity, phenomenological psychopathology helps itself to the entire Husserlian philosophy, and therein the problem lies.

What is psychopathology? It is a formalisation of abnormal folk psychology : it is the meticulous documentation of mental states and their connections – or lack thereof – and in this sense has no special claim to expertise on mental states except in so far as meticulous documentation can be illuminating. Put differently, psychopathology cannot overstep the soil or ground from which it arises – namely, folk psychology – and claim knowledge of the supposed ‘true’ nature of ‘abnormal’ mental states. But that is precisely what contemporary phenomenological psychopathology wants to do. It is not content with psychopathology being a formalisation of folk psychology and hence dependent on it; it wants psychopathology to be a ‘science’ that exceeds folk psychology and from which the latter can learn. In order for psychopathology to be a ‘science’ it claims a theoretical basis that is not available to folk psychology. It establishes its credentials as a ‘science’ by helping itself to the entire Husserlian philosophy: it helps itself, in particular, to the concept of the ‘transcendental reduction’ without which the proposal for ‘second-order’ empathy as a mode of philosophically articulated understanding of others would not work. (I argued this final point in detail in my essay: achieving second-order empathy requires as a first step that one suspends the natural attitude and grasps that the sense of reality with which experience is ordinarily endowed is a phenomenological achievement, a move which presupposes the possibility of the transcendental reduction.)

Shorn of its theoretical ‘transcendental’ basis, psychopathology falls back to earth as the discipline which meticulously documents mental states and their connections in accordance with the implicit rules and principles of a particular folk psychology (particular since the rules and principles in question are normative and subject to, among other things, the influence of ‘culture’). Psychopathologists may be better in this than others, but that is because they have made it their vocation, and not because they have somehow ventured beyond folk psychology. Indeed, somewhat ironically, the commentators’ own account of how understanding works proves my argument that all we’ve got is ‘first-order’ empathy, of which the qualification ‘first-order’ can now be removed as there is nothing left to contrast it with:

 Jaspers realized that, in order to apply the phenomenological method (in this less demanding sense), I first need to ‘evoke’ the perspective of the other in my own consciousness. This evocation is not some kind of (‘mysterious’) self-immersion into the other’s psyche, but a meticulous and often strenuous (and necessarily imperfect) hermeneutical reconstruction of the other’s mental life (i.e., drawing on my own experiences and elaborate narrations of the pertinent experiences in order to get a ‘feeling’ for the other’s mental life).

Indeed: empathic understanding involves a “hermeneutical reconstruction of the other’s mental life”, a reconstruction in which I draw upon “my own experiences”. It seems then that the commentators’ disagreement with the first part of my essay is not as intractable as it first appeared to be. However, the important point to reiterate is that phenomenological psychopathology faces a dilemma: either it holds fast to its basis in transcendental philosophy and hence becomes theoretically incoherent, or it abandons its pretentions to be a ‘science’ and hence, as indicated, rest content with what it is: a formalised folk psychology. In my view, given the arguments of the original essay, only the latter option is available. And contrary to what it may seem, that is not a bad position to be in; far from it. The documentation of the various states of the mind, their description and the search for connections among them, while that is a vocation that cannot exceed folk psychology, it can certainly make available for the ‘folk’ certain possibilities of human experience and belief of which they were not explicitly aware, and therein its value may lie.

Second critique: ‘Distinguishing methodological from ethical value’

 In the second part of my essay I considered the ethical dimension of the second-order empathic stance. I asked if an attitude which emphasises radical difference – as required by this stance – is the right one to hold towards persons diagnosed with schizophrenia. My answer was that it is not, but the reason why this is so is important and deserves restatement. An attitude which emphasises differences is not the right one to hold, not because such emphasis is bad in itself; I would, for example, consider an attitude which emphasises similarity as also potentially problematic. This is because the issue at stake is not the nature of the attitude, but the degree to which the persons who are at its receiving end have had a say in its construction. The reason such a consideration is normatively significant has to do with the necessity of reciprocal relations of recognition for identity formation and self-realisation. To have an academic discipline launching discourses about others cloaked in the technical jargon of phenomenological philosophy, and possessing of the prestige and authority of scholarly argument in general, is to give those others no real chance and no say in how they would like to be represented. This is not a call to ban certain words or discourses – of course not! But it is a call to appreciate that there is no ethically neutral discourse or methodology. Unfortunately this neutrality is precisely what the commentators seem to be arguing for in critique of the second part of my paper.

They begin by stating that emphasising differences is important as this may ultimately enable the psychiatrist to understand his or her patients:

On the contrary, we assert that psychopathology emphasizes difference in order to encourage the examining psychiatrist to keep on going in the attempt to understand even when such understanding seems to have ‘reached a brick wall’. Examining psychiatrists should keep on going even when they fear that they have hit a limit inherent in understanding the patient.

Now this argument seems to rest on an assumed value being attached to understanding others. They restate their point again as follows:

It is valuable to be aware of the differences of persons with psychotic experiences/schizophrenia and typically ‘‘normal’’ persons, and consequently, to persist in the task of understanding.

They go on to describe the value in question as a ‘methodological’ value and distinguish this from the “ethical value of the person with psychotic experiences/schizophrenia [which] is the same as the ethical value of the rest of us”. I admit I find such a pronouncement somewhat unusual, as it implies that our methodological approaches towards others can be disentangled from our ethical evaluations towards them as long as we insist that they are our equals. If only it was this easy.

Understanding others is not merely of ‘methodological’ value: it is ultimately a core issue in any normative moral theory, and hence much broader. The distinction drawn by the commentators between methodological and ethical value suggests that it doesn’t matter what approaches we adopt towards others as long as we are motivated by understanding them, and never lose sight of the fact that they are our equals. Once seen as a concern with how we should treat others, such a picture appears naïve. For one thing, over and the above the need to understand, lays the wishes of those we are trying to understand: they may wish to have a say in how they would like to be understood, and in the language and method which they consider more representative of who they are. All this is to say that there is no domain of human interaction that lies, as it were, beyond the ethical. Phenomenological psychopathology cannot hide behind this claim to ethical neutrality, irrespective of whether or not it is methodologically valuable.

Mohammed Abouelleil Rashed – May 2015

Can Psychiatry Distinguish Social Deviance from Mental Disorder?

[NOTE: (May 2015) Essay and commentaries are now out in print: Click HERE]

Essay accepted for publication in the journal Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology

Written with Dr Rachel Bingham

Abstract and excerpt.

Abstract: Can psychiatry distinguish social deviance from mental disorder? Historical and recent abuses of psychiatry indicate that this is an important question to address. Typically, the deviance/disorder distinction has been made, conceptually, on the basis of dysfunction. Challenges to naturalistic accounts of dysfunction suggest that it is time to adopt an alternative strategy to draw the deviance/disorder distinction. This article adopts and follows through such a strategy, which is to draw the distinction in terms of the origins of distress with the relevant conditions. It is argued that psychiatry’s ability to distinguish deviance from disorder rests on the ability to define, identify and exclude socially constituted forms of distress. These should lie outside the purview of candidacy for mental disorder. In pursuing this argument, the article provides an analysis of the social origins of a form of distress with the personality and sexual disorders, and indicates in what ways it is socially constituted.

Keywords: Distress; Dysfunction; DSM-5; Cognitive Dissonance; Sexual Disorders; Personality Disorders

CAN PSYCHIATRY DISTINGUISH SOCIAL DEVIANCE FROM MENTAL DISORDER?

INTRODUCTION A number of leading figures in psychiatric nosology and the philosophy of mental health proposed various changes to the definition of mental disorder (Stein et al. 2010). These changes were intended to guide the development of the definition in the now published fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM-5. The authors proposed the following criteria which develop those in the DSM-IV (APA 1994); a mental disorder is:

  1. A behavioural or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual
  2. the consequences of which are clinically significant distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning).
  3. must not be merely an expectable response to common stressors and losses (for example, the loss of a loved one) or a culturally sanctioned response to a particular event (for example, trance states in religious rituals)
  4. that reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction
  5. that is not solely a result of social deviance or conflicts with society

In this article we consider criterion E, an exclusionary criterion intended to safeguard against pathologising social deviance and imparting diagnoses on the basis of discrimination. The importance of this safeguard cannot be overstated. The distant as well as recent history of psychiatry is replete with instances of the abuse of diagnosis and treatment for political purposes (van Voren 2010). And psychiatry tends to be susceptible to the claim that it functions as a tool for social control, disposing of ‘problematic’ individuals under the justification of a medical diagnosis (Szasz 1998).  It has been argued for some time that abuses of psychiatry do not require mal-intent on the part of clinicians, but happen despite psychiatrists involved believing their diagnoses to be valid (van Voren 2002). Fulford, Smirnov and Snow (1993, 801) suggest that corruption, political pressures, poor clinical standards and a lack of safeguards “explain the ‘how’ but not the ‘why’ of abuse”. The authors argue that conceptual issues – in particular failure to recognise the value-laden nature of psychiatric diagnoses – explains the “why”, and leaves psychiatry particularly vulnerable to abuse. Elsewhere, the need to address past abuses of psychiatry was argued to require a satisfactory definition of ‘mental disorder’ (Wakefield 1992). Antipsychiatrists did not agree with this diagnosis. Following Thomas Szasz’s seminal argument that mental illness is a ‘myth’, the conceptual foundation of psychiatry has been strenuously disputed. Conceptual issues were not, for Szasz, the root of abuses, but rather legitimised them:

[W]hile de jure, the mental hospital system functions as an arm of the medical profession, de facto, it functions as an arm of the state’s law-enforcement system. The practices thus authorized do not represent the abuses of psychiatry; on the contrary, they represent the proper uses of psychiatry, sanctioned by tradition, science, medicine, law, custom, and common sense. (Szasz 2000, 11-12)

This is an articulation of the concern, or allegation, to which Criterion E responds. In the past, the scholarly defence has been to argue, in various ways, that psychiatry is in fact able to recognise and define its proper domain, thus the question of what is a mental disorder is central to the debate. Criterion E offers both an official recognition of the dangers of pathologisation and an apparent conceptual safeguard. This paper does not further rehearse the debate about the need for such a safeguard, but explores whether Criterion E is able to fulfil this role. Thus our contribution is to update the debate in the light of recent work on concepts of health and illness, to try to make the distinction between social deviance and mental disorder using DSM-5, and to provide an original analysis of the social origins of some forms of distress in the light of these considerations.[i]

In order to explore what criterion E entails we revert to the full definition provided in the now published DSM-5: “Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual” (emphasis added). [ii] This is almost identical to the definition provided in the DSM-IV. Thus formulated, as Stein and colleagues (2010, 1765) note in relation to the DSM-IV, criterion E is not “strictly necessary” as the prior specification (criterion ‘D’) that the condition or syndrome must be due to a dysfunction in the individual suffices. However, given the aforementioned importance of guarding against misuse of psychiatry for political or other discriminatory purposes and the difficulty in indicating appropriate use of the term ‘dysfunction’, Stein and colleagues chose to retain criterion E in simplified form. Conceptually, then, if a dysfunction can be identified then a mental disorder can be said to be present if the other criteria are also fulfilled. The safeguard against pathologising social deviance is accordingly the identification of dysfunction in the individual. Thus although presented as a criterion required by the conceptual and empirical difficulties inherent in defining and identifying dysfunction, to do any work criterion E in fact depends on the ability to define and identify dysfunction.

This article proceeds as follows: First, we identify some relevant meanings of ‘dysfunction’ with a particular focus on dysfunction understood in terms of the consequences of a syndrome: distress and disability. Second, we examine the implications for criterion E of understanding dysfunction in those terms. We argue that distinguishing social deviance from mental disorder now requires that a distinction is drawn between phenomena in which distress is an outcome of social conflict and discrimination and phenomena in which distress is intrinsic to the condition. Third, we explore different meanings of ‘intrinsic’ distress. We point out the difficulty in providing a positive definition and focus thus on what ‘intrinsic’ is not rather than on what it is. We propose that an alternative to distress being intrinsic to a condition is for such states to be constituted by social factors. What does it mean for distress to be constituted by social factors? To answer this question we explore the difference between factors that may cause a distressing state and factors that constitute that state.  We argue that psychological states that are socially constituted – that is, are created and sustained by social factors – are excluded by criterion E from candidacy for mental disorder. Fourth, we provide an account of distress with the conditions of most relevance to the distinction between social deviance and mental disorder, pointing out in what ways distress may be understood as socially constituted. Fifth, and finally, we present some clarifications and outline some implications of this view. This article considers only Criterion E, and not the other criteria for a mental disorder as listed above. Thus, a condition that is argued to meet Criterion E may yet fail the other criteria and therefore not be considered a mental disorder under the DSM definition, despite meeting the final criterion.

DYSFUNCTION

As indicated in the introduction, to do any work criterion E depends on defining and identifying dysfunction. A reasonable starting point, then, would be to attempt to specify the meaning of the term ‘dysfunction’.  One prominent strategy has been to seek a definition of dysfunction in naturalistic terms. The most widely debated and influential has been Jerome Wakefield’s evolutionary theoretic approach (1999, 1997). According to Wakefield, a dysfunction is a result of some mechanism failing to perform its natural function as designed (selected) by evolution (i.e. the function that can explain why the mechanism or organ exists and why it is designed the way it is). Wakefield’s account has been criticised as highly speculative and lacking in clinical utility. Further, it appears to rely on the questionable assumption “that there is a clear (enough) division between psychological functioning that is natural (evolved and innate), as opposed to social (cultivated)” (Bolton 2008, 124). In the absence of a clear division, Wakefield’s dysfunction cannot tag exclusively onto a fact of nature, precisely because psychological function is the product of “several interweaving” natural, social, and individual factors which are not separable through the science we currently possess (Bolton 2010, 329-331).

Problems with Wakefield’s account and with naturalism more generally have prompted alternative strategies to understand dysfunction.[iii] Thus, Bolton argues, if we abandon naturalism about illness, “if we give up trying to conceptually locate a natural fact of the matter that underlies illness attribution – then we are left trying to make the whole story run on the basis of something like ‘distress and impairment of functioning’” (2010, 332). Stein and colleagues note that an alternative to naturalism is to understand ‘dysfunction’ in terms of the “consequences of the syndrome, specifically that it leads to or is associated with distress and disability” (2010, 1763, emphasis added).  The move from ‘naturalism about illness’ to ‘distress and disability as the mark of illness’ is a reversal of the priority of dysfunction from being antecedent to the syndrome to being a manifestation, or consequence, of it. For example, what marks out a syndrome like depression as illness is not some underlying and invariant psychological or biological mechanism(s) but the subjective experience of distress and the extent of impairment of the person’s day to day functioning. This is consistent with the syndrome being caused or constituted by biological factors: this reversal does not entail the denial of biology. What it indicates is that illness attributions, conceptually, cannot be made on the basis of an antecedent natural fact, but on the basis of the consequences of the syndrome as they manifest for the subject. This raises a further complexity in terms of which kinds of distress are to be conceived as illness as opposed to a normal response to the vicissitudes of life. We leave this complexity aside and stay with the original point: to do any work criterion E depends on defining and identifying dysfunction. Now that ‘dysfunction’ is understood in terms of the consequences of the syndrome, viz. distress and disability, could it be claimed that the identification of distress and disability is sufficient ground to diagnose mental disorder irrespective of social deviance or conflict? The answer to this question clearly is no. The reason is that distress and disability may be an outcome of social deviance and conflict, while they also may not. If we wish to ensure that diagnosis is not inappropriately applied to individuals whose suffering can, in some relevant and significant sense, be understood as a consequence or expression of conflict with society, then it becomes necessary to draw this distinction.

[i] A reviewer for this paper had made the important point that the distinction between mental disorder and social deviance is itself a cultural construction with a long history. This suggests that there is scope to deconstruct the distinction. While clearly an interesting project in its own right, our concerns here are more limited to exploring whether – through criterion E – the distinction can be made. We thus assume that there is something called mental disorder or mental health problem (definitions of which are subject to much debate), and something called social deviance (which has nothing directly to do with mental disorder). We further assume that this is an important distinction to make. [ii] DSM-5. The definition of Criterion E in the DSM-IV: “neither deviant behaviour (e.g. political, religious or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual” (APA 2000, p. xxxi). [iii] See Bolton (2008, 2013) and Kingma (2013) for review and critical assessment of the various attempts to define dysfunction in naturalistic terms.

Spirit Possession, Personhood, & Intentionality: Perspectives for the Philosophy of Mental Health

Summary of an essay I completed recently.

Spirit possession is a common phenomenon around the world in which a non-corporeal agent is involved with a human host. This manifests in a range of maladies or in displacement of the host’s agency and identity. Prompted by engagement with the phenomenon in Africa, this paper draws some connections between spirit possession, and the concepts of personhood and intentionality. It employs these concepts to articulate spirit possession, while also developing the intentional stance as formulated by Daniel Dennett. It argues for an understanding of spirit possession as the spirit stance: an intentional strategy that aims at predicting and explaining behaviour by ascribing to an agent (the spirit) beliefs and desires, but is only deployed once the mental states and activity of the subject (the person) fail specific normative distinctions. Applied to behaviours which are generally taken to signal ‘madness’ or ‘mental illness’, the spirit stance preserves a peculiar form of intentionality where otherwise behaviour would be explained as consequence of a broken physical mechanism. Centuries before the modern disciplines of psychoanalysis and phenomenological-psychopathology endeavoured to restore meaning to ‘madness’, the social institution of spirit possession had been preserving the intentionality of socially deviant behaviour.

Discuss: If critical psychiatrists had scientifically valid and convincing arguments, psychiatrists would agree with their position

(Discussion initiated by Patrick Allen)

Critical psychiatrists make – at least – four claims:

  •  Psychotropic drugs are harmful.
  • Mental health conditions are problems in living a la Thomas Szasz: they are not illnesses.
  • Psychiatry medicalises human experience and suffering.
  • Psychiatry is in cahoots with ‘Big Pharma’ which partially provides the incentive for the previous three problems: more harmful drugs, a disease model of human experience and suffering, and the increasing medicalisation of the same.

I accept that different critical psychiatrists may hold these claims with various degrees of conviction, but these four claims are a good starting point. To address the point of debate – “If critical psychiatrists had scientifically valid and convincing arguments, psychiatrists would agree with their position” – we need to assess each of these claims. If they are valid then psychiatrists should agree. Let us first state the (obvious) point that agreement or lack thereof is not the sole consideration for the validity of a position. The point of debate should rather be: are the arguments of critical psychiatrists valid? In any case, with this minor point aside we can turn to more substantive concerns. I’ll just sketch some of the issues here.

  • Psychotropic drugs are harmful: this is clearly an empirical claim and I am not an expert on the evidence here. But there seems to be loud voices from consumers of psychiatric drugs and psychiatrists alike who have compelling evidence (including first-person experience) that the side-effects of psychiatric drugs are serious (think of Clozapine for instance) and the therapeutic effects poorly understood. On that basis, if only tentatively, we can grant the critical psychiatrists the first point. But it should be qualified by saying that some people benefit from psychotropics and swear by them.
  • Mental health conditions are problems in living a la Thomas Szasz: they are not illnesses: this is a conceptual point and has been much debated over the past twenty years in the philosophy of psychiatry. Basically, the issue turns on how we define illness or disorder. I am obviously not going to go in to that long debate but I personally find convincing that a central feature of illness is a negatively evaluated experience of incapacity where incapacity is defined as the failure of intentional action (see the work of Bill Fulford and Derek Bolton, although Derek adopts different terminology).  And this central feature can apply equally to the conditions we call physical as to those we call mental. In short, whether or not mental conditions are illnesses depends on how we define illness. Therefore, I would not grant critical psychiatrists the second point.
  • Psychiatry medicalises human experience and suffering: Yes, psychiatry does do that: many behaviours including sexual have become ‘addictions’ and ‘disorders’; mischievous, active children have ADHD; sadness is depressive disorder; and so on… So it is true that psychiatry is engaged in medicalisation. And this clearly can be a bad thing, for instance in the loss of diversity and authenticity that ensues from transforming the human condition to broken mechanism. But not everyone would take this view, some would not consider medicalisation a negative thing. There seems to be deeply held values at play here pertaining to the meaning of our experiences and our lives more generally. Thus, I would agree with the critical psychiatrists that psychiatry medicalises human experience, but would leave the issue of medicalisation – whether it is bad or not – a point for debate. Hence, I would not grant critical psychiatrists the third point.
  • Psychiatry is in cahoots with ‘Big Pharma’: Seems likely! There is a wealth of evidence supporting this point. And if it is true, this really is a problem as it jeopardises the scientific integrity and ethical standing of psychiatry. I therefore grant the critical psychiatrists the fourth point.

So, the score is 2 for and 2 against! I’ll leave it at this.

Culture, salience, and psychiatric diagnosis: exploring the concept of cultural congruence & its practical application

Click here for article

Culture, salience, and psychiatric diagnosis: exploring the concept of cultural congruence & its practical application. Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine (Journal)

This article is part of the series: Towards a new psychiatry: Philosophical and ethical issues in classification, diagnosis and care

Abstract

Cultural congruence is the idea that to the extent a belief or experience is culturally shared it is not to feature in a diagnostic judgement, irrespective of its resemblance to psychiatric pathology. This rests on the argument that since deviation from norms is central to diagnosis, and since what counts as deviation is relative to context, assessing the degree of fit between mental states and cultural norms is crucial. Various problems beset the cultural congruence construct including impoverished definitions of culture as religious, national or ethnic group and of congruence as validation by that group. This article attempts to address these shortcomings to arrive at a cogent construct.

The article distinguishes symbolic from phenomenological conceptions of culture, the latter expanded upon through two sources: Husserl’s phenomenological analysis of background intentionality and neuropsychological literature on salience. It is argued that culture is not limited to symbolic presuppositions and shapes subjects’ experiential dispositions. This conception is deployed to re-examine the meaning of (in)congruence. The main argument is that a significant, since foundational, deviation from culture is not from a value or belief but from culturally-instilled experiential dispositions, in what is salient to an individual in a particular context.

Applying the concept of cultural congruence must not be limited to assessing violations of the symbolic order and must consider alignment with or deviations from culturally-instilled experiential dispositions. By virtue of being foundational to a shared experience of the world, such dispositions are more accurate indicators of potential vulnerability. Notwithstanding problems of access and expertise, clinical practice should aim to accommodate this richer meaning of cultural congruence.

Abstract for the 15th International Philosophy & Psychiatry Conference: July 2012: Safety in Numbers and Crazy Cultures: the Limits of Diagnosis

With Natalie Banner, Rachel Bingham, Norman Poole, Roman Pawar, and Abdi Sanati

Overview
This workshop considers the role of community in understandings of normality. In 1994, the DSM added a caveat to the definition of mental disorder, that cultural congruence protects individual’s beliefs and values from being labelled as pathological. This reflected a blossoming political and ideological notion of ‘tolerance’, which now underpins widespread efforts to respect – and not alienate – communities with non-mainstream value systems and beliefs. The INPP 2012 conference reflects continued efforts to understand and embrace difference and promote tolerance. Yet, mental disorder is fundamentally about ‘difference’, and is by definition not tolerated but treated. We therefore propose the following presentations in an exploration of ‘difference’ as it arises within, and between, communities. The first presentation questions why it is that a single individual with an unshakable and dangerous value system may sometimes be diagnosed with a mental disorder, while an unshakable and dangerous value system held by a group may be criminal, but is not ‘pathological’. The second presentation considers the features of communities which protect against diagnosis. We consider the dependence of this immunity on being sufficiently  organised and having a discourse and dialogue of acceptability or tolerance. The final presentation discusses the successes of the homosexual civil rights movement in establishing a respected orientation as opposed to a repressed medical condition. We consider the conceptual problems illuminated by this shift, which reveal important features of diagnosis itself.

Relevant links:

INPP Conference 2012 Website

Breivik Trial

Hearing Voices Movement

Pro-Ana Blog

Book Review: Delusions & the Madness of the Masses

Delusions and the Madness of the Masses is the latest book by Lawrie Reznek, a writer whose work is associated with the field of the Philosophy of Psychiatry. Ambitious both in scope and intent, this book is the latest installment in a tradition of works that employ the language of pathology and disorder — normally understood to apply to individuals — to describe whole societies and belief-systems. One is reminded of Freud’s (1969) assertion — which Reznek cites — that religion is mass delusion; of Edgerton’s (1992) characterization of some pre-modern societies as “sick”; of Dawkin’s (2006) polemic against God, belief in which he describes as delusional. While, thus, not original, Reznek’s thesis — that certain subcultures, groups, and sometimes whole communities can be deluded and should be described as such — is arrived at primarily through philosophical argument rather than psychoanalytic insight or a perusal of detailed anthropological data. On the whole, and for reasons discussed below, I do not believe that Reznek has done enough to convincingly advance his thesis.

LINK: http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=6180&cn=394