Posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2016, at 20:14:55
In reply to Lou's response- » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2016, at 17:10:52
> > > Hi, Tabitha,
> > >
> > > "Then they assume you're a person who needs to function at the best level you can, so they will keep tweaking your meds to correct for side effects."
> > >
> > > I think in sharing you make some poignant points about psychiatry, especially about how it bases its treatment of individuals on their assumed "success" or "failure" in the economic market. And this validates one of the reasons I question the ethical and true empathic validity of psychiatry itself: Psychiatry is essentially a secular religion with our supposedly "free" neoliberal market being the end-all/be-all basis of its morality. So, the more money you have, the more "normal," you are assumed to be; the less money you have, the more "deviant" you are assumed to be, the more of a "loser" "criminal" "outcast" you are assumed to be. Now, that certainly sucks. But since we no longer have any kind of over-arching broad religious value system in American culture, this (the vaguely Calvinist market) is what has replaced it.
> > >
> > > And in terms of anti-psychiatry talking about mental illness in terms of "deviance," I think some of the people in that movement are framing "deviance" in a positive light, as a challenge to the Calvinist neoliberal "free" market as the end-all be-all of morality, as a way of saying that the market is defining people's legitimate suffering at its hands as "deviance," and trying to medicalize them into silence. I think Christ Empowered may share some of my opinions on this issue. What do you think?
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for your comment :-)
> >
> > So I think you're saying that it's possible a person might be labelled mentally ill and subjected to treatment when what's really happening is that they don't want to participate in the traditional economy for moral reasons, and are suffering as a result. In that case, it makes sense they would experience psychiatric intervention as a coercive force trying to push them into line with society's values. I have heard a similar argument from feminism, saying that women used to be committed simply for not fitting the socially mandated role of compliant housewife.
> >
> > I guess I would separate the two things. Being a non-conformist is difficult and can create suffering, and mental conditions like anxiety, mania, depression, psychosis, etc are also difficult and create suffering. However, I don't believe mental illness is just non-conformity that is being punished. Plenty of people that do conform to social and economic norms also suffer from mental illness.
> >
> > Similarly, I can see that psychiatry could be used to punish non-conformity, but I don't believe that's its main intent. That view is just a bit too conspiratorial for me, and seems to require ignoring the real suffering that gets relieved (imperfectly) with treatment.
> >
> > But I am a person with a horror of falling into poverty, because I have seen the suffering that creates. So while I would not argue that economic conformity is morally superior, I do think it makes life a lot easier given the way society currently operates (i.e. lack of safety net). Thus, I think pushing someone into economic participation can be well-intentioned even when it feels unwelcome.
> >
> > Tabitha,
> clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,....
> Lou
>
> Friends,
The clapping was not for Tabitha. Sorry, but I got the wrong author....
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1088004
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20160331/msgs/1088138.html