Posted by Doo on March 28, 2001, at 23:25:38
In reply to New theories of mental disorders needed (long), posted by JasonL on March 25, 2001, at 18:15:06
I read your message and some of the follow ups. It seems like we are focusing a lot on the biology of the mental illness. I don't want to minimize that path. But let's not forget some important things that psychology has taught us. I'll try to expose some of what I have learned, and excuse my imperfect english (I'm from Quebec, french speaking)
The psychodynamic (freudian) and post-freudian litterature describes with impressing details the way the psyche is developping through the first years of life. Each traumatism produces a "zone of sensitivity" in the psyche. Depending on what stage the traumatism(s) occur(s), the psyche will develop different "symptoms" which are ways to avoid the suffering the traumatism produces. Early traumatisms (0-2 years) tend to induce psychotic predisposition - as an example, dissociating from reality is one of the ways the small baby's psyche will use to avoid the pain. Dissociating becomes a "favorite" way of avoiding the pain, that may persist through the ages. From 2 to 4 years, traumatisms seem to induce "borderline" symptoms - this is the age that will determine how the psyche will handle agressive emotions. After 4 years, the psyche stronger and traumatisms are faced with much more efficiency if the first years have been going "good enough". The symptoms will be in the neurotic range - obsessions, compulsions. The capacity to rationalize emotions is a sign that the psyche works on a neurotic way, which is, by the way, the more "mature".
So there are, according to the psychodynamic point of view, three families of personality. There are subgroups, of course. But I won't go farther in this way. I just want to point out that there have been many poeple who studied the way the psyche evolves, what are our needs, what effect the environment has on the formation of the psyche, of the person. For example, there are things that lead a child to feel confusion, anger and the "sense of going mad", like a parent giving a double-bind-message. For example, let's say a young boy asks permission to watch tv. Mother says no. The boy starts crying and yelling, and the mother, tells him "fine look at the tv" on an agressive voice tone. The boy knows that if he looks at the tv, mother will not be happy. And if he doesn't mother won't be happy either. He is in a double-bind. He can't do anything to be "ok". He will probably feel confuse, feel agressive towards himself and his mother. Repeating this often will make a "zone of sensitivity", and if the situation is worse, the development of the psyche, of the person, that is, can be compromised. A psyche can not develop itself while so much suffering is contained. All the energy of the psyche will be used to keep the strong and threatening emotions away.
Lack of consistency from the parents, lack of empathy, lack of structure or a too harsh one are some of the things that can make the person develop "symptoms". Let's not forget one thing: symptoms are the way the person uses to stay sane. That's one of the leading ideas of the antipsychiatists. They said that we had to let the person live his or her psychotic symptoms and try to follow him/her in that illogical world that is the psychosis. I suggest a very good book called Mary Barnes, that describes the "reparenting" of a psychotic woman who recovered a rather good mental health after being welcomed in her regressive way of functionning. This book is amazing.
There is also one point about the biology of mental illness. Let's say I take some syrup for my cough, and it helps. Then, would I say that the cause of my cough is a lack of syrup? Nope. In the same way, if the medication helps (and thank god it often does), can I say that my "illness" is due to the lack of certain neurotransmitters? not really. I think we have to go to another question: why is my brain in such a bad shape? Why am I lacking neurotransmitters? I think that saying it is all genetic is so simplistic. It negates the impact of the environment on the biology. There really are some persons that have some genetic predispositions, but I don't think that it is a so huge percentage of the population.
I think it is necessary to continue the present research, but let's not focus on only one part of the reality, and let's not forget that the way we conceptualize mental illness in our times is very closely linked to the industry of pharmacology. Let's not forget what we learned a century ago, and let's not close the door to other new avenues of research.
By the way I'm not against meds, I take some.
Thank you for reading!
poster:Doo
thread:57508
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010327/msgs/57864.html