|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
The Jonathan Dolhenty Archive |
 |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
AN INTRODUCTION by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.
Throughout most of history, oppression of individuals who thought and acted "differently" from what was considered the norm was primarily a religious phenomenon, sometimes with the help of the State which punished public displays of "improper" behavior. Harsh treatment of most forms of deviant behavior was justified because the perpetrator had violated the laws of God (as pronounced, of course, by the religious leaders), or had violated laws of the State, most of which looked to religion for their justification. Social deviants were sinners of the worst sort and both religious and social condemnation were appropriate. Later, as the influence of religion waned and the influence of "science" grew, the treatment accorded to social deviants changed. This is particularly true with respect to the development of Western psychiatry and psychology. As a result of this new influence, the justification for oppression of social deviancy also changed. Dr. Thomas Szasz, a prominent psychiatrist and rather volatile opponent of involuntary commitment for so so-called "mental" illness, discusses the matter of justification in an enlightening way. He maintains that the first justification for oppression is no justification at all. The first justification is that the specific act violates a religious precept. This is the sanction of an absolute authority, such as God or the Church. But if such an absolute authority must justify itself, then it appears not to be an absolute authority. An absolute authority should be absolute and in no need of justification. Religious justification has less influence today than it had in the past. "Scientific" justification and the authority of "science" have, for the most part, taken its place. The game itself of oppression of social deviancy has not changed all that much, but the rules have changed and the reasons for the rules has changed. What has occurred, according to some observers, is that psychiatric oppression of social deviancy has replaced religious oppression of it. The attempt now is to legitimize the harm done by psychiatry (rather than religion) to a deviant individual. There are, according to Dr. Szasz, three main justifications for oppression of those who dare to deviate from the moral or social sanctions of a particular society. 1. "We" are human, but "they" are not.
Historical Examples
2. The victimizer claims "he" himself is the victim
Historical Examples
3. "They" are a threat, not to "us," but to "themselves"
Historical Examples
These justifications are important because society must have reasons for what it does, even for its oppressive practices toward individuals or groups who constitute a minority or are, for some reason or other, not in the mainstream of, say, American life. These justifications are not used only for religious and psychiatric sanctions of deviant behavior, however. They are increasingly used for legal sanctions as well. And herein lies a major problem for believers in a society of free individuals. The Controversy For hundreds of years the belief was held that deviant behavior was the result of the moral disintegration of the individual. People who manifested behavior deemed unacceptable, troublesome, or "perverse," were viewed as suffering from immorality. The "disease" was moral, not mental or medical. The cure was religious. The means for curing the moral "disease" ranged from religious confession to burning the victim at the stake. While most people have now rejected this, some remnants of it still remain in our culture. During the latter of the nineteenth century, the religious model came under attack. With the advent Sigmund Freud and his disciples, a new model was proposed. It was not the soul that was "sick," but the mind. A whole new group of caretakers was created: the psychiatrists and psychotherapists. While these caretakers tended to disagree, violently in some cases, about the causes of these "disorders" of the mind, they generally agreed these "mental" diseases resulted from environmental influences. The cures for these "diseases" ranged from psychoanalysis to psychosurgery. These psychodynamic theories have had a tremendous influence on the development of treatment for people considered troublesome to others in society. The influence of psychiatry and clinical psychology on modern society can hardly be overstated. During the past hundred years we have been literally bombarded with the image of the Psychological Man. The psychological nature of man has been brought to the forefront of discussions about human behavior and has been used to determine much social policy, as well as civil legislation. We have been told that deviant human behavior can be traced back to conflicts over toilet training, penis envy, incest taboos, role conflicts, and a host of other complexes which afflict us in childhood. An alleged psychological cause is at the root of all deviant behavior. Many times, however, psychiatrists disagree over the causes and we play the "psychiatric game."
The answer to the psychological ills suffered by individuals, according to the psychotherapists, is some form of psychotherapy. Over the years many forms of psychotherapy were developed depending on the interests and inclinations of particular psychiatric and psychological theorists. They developed a virtual "supermarket" of treatments.
New words and new definitions of old words entered our language as a result of the influence of psychiatry and psychology. We now speak of people being neurotic or psychotic, of repression, manic-depressive, Oedipus complex, sublimation, and so forth. Language has become an instrument of oppression itself. Language categorizes individuals into normal and abnormal, friend or foe, sick or well, harmless and dangerous, good and evil. Specific words have emotional overtones which, when applied to individuals can mark them for life: pervert, maniac, molester, mad, crazy, and so on. Language has become one of the most prominent instruments of oppression and psychological torture. Vast sums of money have been spent on all kinds of psychotherapy from traditional psychoanalysis to "nude" therapy. Psychotherapy has become a parlor game where every action is analyzed to death to see what is really meant by it. The "Freudian slip" becomes a tool for probing the inner depths of the psyche and the couch becomes the symbol of the psychiatric battlefield. Psychotherapy replaces religion as the healer of the soul and the office of the psychotherapist replaces the confessional box. All is not well, however, in the psychiatric game itself. It is being widely recognized that something is wrong in the land of the psychotherapist. Psychiatry and psychotherapy are now being attacked, not only in the public arena, but in courts of law as well. Recent examples are the questioning of the traditional definition of the term "insanity," and the scientific challenge to the the many "syndromes" being put forth to justify violent behavior, including the so-called repressed memory syndrome. Dr. C. Hobert Mowrer, a professor of psychology, pointed out that something serious is wrong with contemporary psychiatry and clinical psychology. According to him, these disciplines have not validated themselves and their influence on society has been subtly subversive. Dr. Thomas Szasz, a professor of psychiatry, has been a constant critic of contemporary thinking and considers the term "mentally sick" to be a mere metaphor and he objects to the "treatment" according those considered to be "mentally sick." It is interesting to note that Dr. Mowrer mentioned that psychiatry and clinical psychology have not validated themselves. That is, in my interpretation, just another way of saying that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the theories that psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and other "mental health professionals" so profoundly propound. The theories, and therefore the so-called "treatments," rest on assumptions which these practitioners have simply accepted as being true. Many of these assumptions have really been transferred carte-blanche from the religious realm to the realm of "scientific" psychiatry and psychology. As the influence of psychiatry and psychology grew, these "disciplines" became virtually obsessed with sexuality and especially with sexual "deviance." This was quite natural since religion was obsessed with these activities (and still is!). The negative attitude of the prevailing Christian religions toward sexuality simply poured over into the then-developing "sciences" of psychiatry and psychology. The pseudo-concepts of "natural law" which provided the basis for determining that certain sexual acts were "unnatural" and "abnormal" were also used by psychiatry and clinical psychology. The basis for the medical model of sexual deviance was, without a doubt, the prevailing religious ideology of the time. Anyone who defied social conventions and practiced certain "perversions" or unapproved actions, sexual or otherwise, was considered a candidate for psychiatric therapy. It was that person's "duty" to seek proper "treatment" so he or she could get "well." The deviant, of course, was not truly responsible for the aberrant behavior, as he or she was according to the religious model, but the deviant had a clear obligation to seek "treatment" and to cooperate in that enterprise. Failing to do so could result in involuntary "treatment" and this, of course would be done for "their own good." The third justification for victimization! When psychiatry and clinical psychology were born, they adopted the then-prevailing moral beliefs of society and by a neat linguistic parlor trick turned religious beliefs into scientific theories. "Sin" became "sickness." "Punishment" became "treatment." "Unnatural" became "abnormal." "Reconciliation" became "cure." Even so, the basic problem remains the same. It does not matter what linguistic tricks were and are being played, the whole issue comes down to this: Certain groups of people are considered "sick" or "psychotic" or "abnormal" because they participate in activities which have been declared unacceptable by social convention. It does not matter that these activities may be harmless to the people involved by any objective standard. The psychiatric game is played out every day in our courtrooms, in our "mental health" centers, in our schools, on television, and everywhere else where we the people have given them permission to play their usually silly games.
Books by Dr. Szasz are available in The Radical Academy Bookstore: I have been notified about another resource which has recently become available in English and is free to download and read:
You may also be interested in these two books, both of which I am in agreement with philosophically regarding "mental illness" and treatment strategies:
More on psychiatry and psychology by Dr. Dolhenty: Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
|||||||
|
Main Page & Index |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.