Thomas - who? Thomas SZASZ!

But first of all let me pause and, metaphorically speaking, cover my e-pal, Louise, with kisses - poor girl!  Until yesterday I had never heard of Thomas Szasz who, incidentally, died on September 8th at the ripe old age of 92.  I cannot find the words to express my gratitude to Louise for bringing this man to my attention, er, hence the metaphorical kisses.

So, who was this Thomas Szasz?  Well, with the usual caveat, you can get a very good idea of his life and achievements from his Wiki entry which I urge you all to read.  He, during the course of his lifetime, has put into words all the nagging doubts and the confused fumbling thoughts I have had for years concerning the nature of psychiatry and psychiatric practice.  Let me just quote a few lines from his Wiki entry which will provide you with the flavour of the man:

His books The Myth of Mental Illness (1960) and The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement (1970) set out some of the arguments with which he is most associated. [...]

As Szasz said, having become convinced of the fictitious character of mental disorders, the frequent injuriousness of psychiatric treatments, the immorality of psychiatric coercions and excuses, he set himself a task to delegitimize the legitimating agencies and authorities and their vast powers, enforced by psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, mental health laws, mental health courts, and mental health sentences. [...]

"Since theocracy is the rule of God or its priests, and democracy the rule of the people or of the majority, pharmacracy is therefore the rule of medicine or of doctors." [...]

Oh boy, is that ever righter than right!  And this sums it up exactly:

"The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life itself. In the typical Western two men fight desperately for the possession of a gun that has been thrown to the ground: whoever reaches the weapon first shoots and lives; his adversary is shot and dies. In ordinary life, the struggle is not for guns but for words; whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim. For example, in the family, husband and wife, mother and child do not get along; who defines whom as troublesome or mentally sick?...[the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other; [the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined is subjugated and may be killed."

I know it is quite ridiculous but I am so excited by discovering this man.  My lonely grumblings about the iniquity amounting to an inquisition on the part of the medical hierarchy, in general, and the psychiatric branch of it, in particular, has brought down on my head the ill-tempered abuse of most of my friends at one time or another - usually towards the end of well-oiled dinner parties when they all start swapping their medical histories and going all gooey-eyed over their wonderful, wonderful doctors!

Also, at the risk of being even more boring than usual, I must repeat again my excited and passionate belief that this internet-thingie is the greatest invention in the history of Man.  I have mentioned before the appalling state of my ignorance (and I keep 'Deogolwulf' around like Lear's fool to remind me should I ever forget!) and the fact is that via the internet I have learned more about more things in the last ten years than I have learned in the rest of my life. Anyway, I can see yet another book approaching at speed. 

In the meantime, out of respect, I shall sit quietly for a moment and contemplate the life of a great and original thinker - Thomas Szasz. 

 

Comments

[dearieme]

Mental disorders are not fictitious. I have twice had to deal with apparently healthy young men descending suddenly into schizophrenia - it's horrifying to witness. A good source on this sort of thing is that fascinating blogger Clayton Cramer, who has brought out a book on the topic
http://www.amazon.com/My-Brother-Ron-Deinstitutionalization-ebook/dp/B008E0LRQE/ref=as_li_wdgt_ex?&linkCode=wsw&tag=claytocramersweb

Of course any sane adult must despise much of psychiatry, and the likes of Sigmund Fraud. But the leap to "fictitious" is bonkers.

[David Duff]

From his Wiki entry:

Szasz wrote: "If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic."[12] While people behave and think in ways that are very disturbing, and that may resemble a disease process (pain, deterioration, response to various interventions), this does not mean they actually have a disease. To Szasz, disease can only mean something people "have," while behavior is what people "do". Diseases are "malfunctions of the human body, of the heart, the liver, the kidney, the brain" while "no behavior or misbehavior is a disease or can be a disease.

[Obviously anonymous because people view mental health issues differently to a broken leg]

Quack stuff Mr D. I don't know a huge amount about it but I do have a step son who is a doctor who specialised in psychiatric medicene and then had a break down himself. He has a life time illness that is manifested by behaviour. He is now no longer a danger to himself and is undertaking a second doctorate in a research related field (nothing to do with his previous work). He does not believe in God. he knows that he is ill and he knows that he can only manage the condition. There is no cure.

[David Duff]

"I don't know a huge amount about it".

An honest admission and one I share. However, Szasz (in so far as I understand him from one hour's investigation(!!!), would have it that your step-son had a behaviour problem not an illness. I hasten to add - and emphasise - that I do *not* suggest that his behavioural problem was imagined or non-existent, only that it was not a *medical* problem. In other words, human behaviour is almost infinitely long and complex and shows itself in manifold examples, and who is to say what is 'normal' and what is 'abnormal' and in need of medical attention? The fact that medics are all too eager to step in and arbitrate (dictate?) their opinion should be a warning to us all.

But all of that is conditional opinion on hold until I get around to reading one of his books.

[A K Haart]

I bought The Myth of Mental Illness but chucked it into a charity bag after reading. Although I was highly receptive to the angle he promotes in the book, I found it dull and unconvincing. If anything it nudged me in the opposite direction.

Mental illness is real, but Szasz takes an essentially political and unscientific view of it and goes on from there. The trouble is there is nowhere else for him to go - no thesis to develop.

The psychological sciences may have much to criticise, but in my view Szasz didn't make a good or a fair job of it.

[David Duff]

Thanks for that, AK, I will bear it in mind when I lay hands on one of his books.

[Stephen Newton]

Szasz states that the real battle is over the definition of mental illness and then sets out his own definition to suit his argument. That is, he carefully defines illness to exclude mental disease and so he could be dismissed as a semantic trickster. I have a schizophrenic neighbour who often takes to arguing with an imagined companion in the street. She is physically healthy. She does not fit Szasz's definition of disease (as you describe it), but she does fit the OED definition: her mind conjures up this imagined companion and so is disordered.

However, this is terribly unfair on Szasz as there is a certainly a tendency, that practitioners of psychiatry will recognise, towards classifying more and more human behaviour under the heading of some disorder or other. It is certainly true that psychology may be used to label dissenters as diseased, which is dangerous.

And this is the point: what is taken to be normal or acceptable behaviour changes constantly. We should constantly challenge the definition of normal to which we are supposed to aspire, seek to understand how that definition was derived, by whom and for what purpose. This requires more, not less, study of human psychology.

The piece you end on, imagining a world in which psychiatry is redundant, is nonsensical. The central argument is that we should take full responsibly for our own actions and stop blaming our bad behaviours on some psychiatry disorder or other. Yet taking full responsibility for our actions should include trying to understand why we do things of which we're are later ashamed (and we have all engaged in behaviours of which we are later ashamed) and learning how to change our behaviour. Violent people often describe losing control and then genuinely regret their actions; it would responsible for them to explore how they can regain control. A responsible schizophrenic, prone to violent outbursts, would take their medicine.

[JK]

When I was abit younger David, I'd occasionally fart in crowded elevators. Then I'd speak to no one in particular, "Dear Lord, can't you control that?!"

Admittedly I enjoyed talking to no one in particular more when I was the only male in the elevator. On those occasions I'd sometimes add, "Oh Dear, sheer as that little skirt is, you'd best take yourself to the drycleaners. Immediately!"

Thing is - I never "took responsibility for my actions" - and though I'd always address my plaintive utterance, "Dear Lord" NO ONE to my memory ever took me as being prayerful... though given your prescription I suppose it might've been more accurate to have called me a spiritualist. But none said that either.

Send a kiss to your friend for Ol' JK David, now I know I didn't used to be nuts.

[Obviously anonymous because people view mental health issues differently to a broken leg]

Szasz probably does not have access to scans and blood tests. The former show things that those who know can read where as the latter show chemical changes in the blood which may result from brain activity or may trigger abnormal brain activity. Even I can look at a 'normal' trace and when it is placed against one that is abnormal the difference is clear to see. The not knowing much is the how and why and what can be done. And the same is true with a broken leg - you don't have to see the external break to read the x-ray that shows the inside of the leg and the hairline fracture. It is what medics are trained for. Could you just list the qualifications that Szasz has?

[David Duff]

JK, you were, are, and will forever be, a 'total fruit 'n' nut' case. You are not alone. In my case I keep hearing a voice in my head. It is only recently that I realised it is my voice - and very shrewd and sensible it is, too!

Stephen, I am a little pressed for time this morning. Your comment is somewhat confusing given that it seems to be saying 'a' and 'not-a' at the same time. However I want to take this subject a bit further in another post later today and I may well respond to some of your points then.

[David Duff]

Anon, your comment crossed mine but I will touch upon your points later today in a new post.

[JK]

"JK, you were, are, and will forever be, a 'total fruit 'n' nut' case. You are not alone."

Thanks Sigmund Duff - but I realized earlier once some Chinese company began selling little bottles of aerosolysizing "Fart In A Can" that I couldn't possibly be other than "perfectly normal" even though I never once took personal resonsibility for my actions - if sovereign countries took my little hillbilly gag commercially.

I mean - if the Chinks sell the stuff - how could I be otherwise? But, truth be told, not even the most American spiritually inspired fart from the mother-country, boiled egg, two sprigs of broccoli, tin of kipper, two drams of spoilt menstruating Oirish milking goats and nine sand-parboiled sea-turtle eggs [relax David, we've got your Clegg authorizing permission for the endangered kippers] and the obligatory swipe of lavendar off Harry's girl's Las Vegas whoops - I can't see how I could possibly be schizophrenic.

Fuck! I notice you Brits spell "BEHAVIOR" with a Goddamned U even though you talk amongst yourselves as if he conforms to your OED.

Imagine. Simple hillbilly JK lettin' off a windy (albeit) and everybody I know who has her picture intending to pay for stuff leaps up and declares, WADDAA FOOK - AN NOBOODY'S (Maj, Your Imagest On our £) GONNA LET A FRIEND OF DAVID DUFF...)

Well. I finally am willing to come clean. I admit.

It was me who did that first in the Bear & the Bull and when that didn't work - in front of those Aussie Marines.

But honestly Elizabeth - I SWEAR I had no idea Australian Marines were such pussies.

And that's why me and Brandy tried it next in the China Fleet Club. I dunno Elizzy, "... but there's some few of your subjects I hae me doots ae.."

[JK]

And who gave you my number Elizabeth?

"Proof" you ask?

OK.

http://news.yahoo.com/nobel-peace-prize-could-dissidents-eu-religious-leaders-000634747.html

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002225

[Jimmy Glesga]

david. No one has a clue what makes people think. People make a living telling us that they do.

[David Duff]

JK, your first link made me cry, and your second link made me laugh!

Jimmy, see post above.