![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sethrenn.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
multiplicity_archivesI've noticed that the word 'delusion' gets batted around very casually by many who don't seem to realise that it's a subjective category. Most dictionaries give meanings along the lines of "a false belief held in spite of evidence to the contrary." While this seems self-evident on the face of it, it begs the question of what constitutes evidence to the contrary, and whether an unverifiable belief can qualify as a delusion. There are a lot of things which are unlikely but can't necessarily be disproven, and everyone has a few false beliefs floating around in their consciousness somewhere, the vast majority of them innocuous-- for instance, the idea that a certain brand of laundry detergent is 'better than all the others' because the commercial says it is, or that your favourite politician couldn't possibly be accepting money to vote for the bills he votes for.
Even psychologists themselves are admitting that pinning down what exactly constitutes a delusion is exceedingly difficult:
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/80/0c018580.asp
Here's the secret, kids: Professionals don't really know any more about what's going on in your head than anyone else does. What the good ones bring with them, that sets them apart from the run-of-the-mill person, is compassion, empathy and the ability to be a good listener. 'Mental illness' is not the same as physical illness. You can look at the symptoms of someone who comes into a doctor's office, and deduce that fever plus nausea plus sore throat plus exposure to people with the flu probably mean they've got the flu, and for a lot of illnesses you can run tests to check for the presence of certain pathogens. However, the 'symptoms' for most mental disorders merely point to general tendencies, and many of them are very subjective. The fact is that even after a century and a half of psychological theories, there is still no consensus on what constitutes a 'mentally healthy' individual, and on what exactly differentiates them from an 'unhealthy' one.
One of the worst misuses of the concept of psychology has been to enforce control and social norms. Women and children have been disproportionately mistreated by psychologists, because so many of our ideas on psychology are based on assumption of white heterosexual men as the 'norm,' and everything else an unhealthy deviation. Any socially 'undesirable' behaviour, such as a woman wanting to have a job and work outside the home, could be conveniently redefined as a mental pathology in order to discourage and suppress it. After decades, the APA is finally starting to come around to acknowledging the fact that cultural/subcultural affiliations must be taken into context when determining whether someone holds a 'delusion' or not-- the new emphasis on 'subcultural norms' is a reflection of that.
But think about this for a minute. Essentially, this tells us that certain beliefs are acceptable when they coincide with the norms of one's culture, but delusions when they're held by a single individual in a culture which does not endorse such beliefs. In other words, popularity determines acceptability, and normalcy is up for sale to the highest and most powerful bidder. It has nothing to do with whether a belief is helpful or harmful for the particular individual who holds it, only with whether they 'fit in' with a larger group.
However, in any event, I personally find it discouraging when our community endorses the idea of other groups as insane, or accept that the customary psychiatric wisdom about all other kinds of 'insanity', just not theirs, is perfectly valid. It seems to me that by agreeing that the current psychological concepts of what constitute disorder and delusion are acceptable-- except in the case of multiplicity-- one is actually helping the system which keeps us marginalised.
IMO, the fact that the establishment currently considers multiplicity a form of insanity is not the problem. Rather, it's a symptom. The problem lies in the existing establishment itself, its standards, and its concepts of normality. What needs to be challenged is the concept that only a certain type of person, with specific approved beliefs, can be sane or healthy, rather than merely attempt to get multiplicity accepted as falling within this concept of the healthy person.
I've always been a little disappointed at the fact that there hasn't been more cooperation among groups challenging current psychiatric standards. Often it seems that people are more invested in feeling that their group has been specially singled out for persecution, or that the standards only need to be changed to redefine their group, but no one else's, as normal-- more than they are interested in solidarity with others who have been pushed outside the realm of the 'sane.'
Even psychologists themselves are admitting that pinning down what exactly constitutes a delusion is exceedingly difficult:
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/80/0c018580.asp
Here's the secret, kids: Professionals don't really know any more about what's going on in your head than anyone else does. What the good ones bring with them, that sets them apart from the run-of-the-mill person, is compassion, empathy and the ability to be a good listener. 'Mental illness' is not the same as physical illness. You can look at the symptoms of someone who comes into a doctor's office, and deduce that fever plus nausea plus sore throat plus exposure to people with the flu probably mean they've got the flu, and for a lot of illnesses you can run tests to check for the presence of certain pathogens. However, the 'symptoms' for most mental disorders merely point to general tendencies, and many of them are very subjective. The fact is that even after a century and a half of psychological theories, there is still no consensus on what constitutes a 'mentally healthy' individual, and on what exactly differentiates them from an 'unhealthy' one.
One of the worst misuses of the concept of psychology has been to enforce control and social norms. Women and children have been disproportionately mistreated by psychologists, because so many of our ideas on psychology are based on assumption of white heterosexual men as the 'norm,' and everything else an unhealthy deviation. Any socially 'undesirable' behaviour, such as a woman wanting to have a job and work outside the home, could be conveniently redefined as a mental pathology in order to discourage and suppress it. After decades, the APA is finally starting to come around to acknowledging the fact that cultural/subcultural affiliations must be taken into context when determining whether someone holds a 'delusion' or not-- the new emphasis on 'subcultural norms' is a reflection of that.
But think about this for a minute. Essentially, this tells us that certain beliefs are acceptable when they coincide with the norms of one's culture, but delusions when they're held by a single individual in a culture which does not endorse such beliefs. In other words, popularity determines acceptability, and normalcy is up for sale to the highest and most powerful bidder. It has nothing to do with whether a belief is helpful or harmful for the particular individual who holds it, only with whether they 'fit in' with a larger group.
However, in any event, I personally find it discouraging when our community endorses the idea of other groups as insane, or accept that the customary psychiatric wisdom about all other kinds of 'insanity', just not theirs, is perfectly valid. It seems to me that by agreeing that the current psychological concepts of what constitute disorder and delusion are acceptable-- except in the case of multiplicity-- one is actually helping the system which keeps us marginalised.
IMO, the fact that the establishment currently considers multiplicity a form of insanity is not the problem. Rather, it's a symptom. The problem lies in the existing establishment itself, its standards, and its concepts of normality. What needs to be challenged is the concept that only a certain type of person, with specific approved beliefs, can be sane or healthy, rather than merely attempt to get multiplicity accepted as falling within this concept of the healthy person.
I've always been a little disappointed at the fact that there hasn't been more cooperation among groups challenging current psychiatric standards. Often it seems that people are more invested in feeling that their group has been specially singled out for persecution, or that the standards only need to be changed to redefine their group, but no one else's, as normal-- more than they are interested in solidarity with others who have been pushed outside the realm of the 'sane.'
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-26 04:41 am (UTC)I think it happens in all insular communities. Gods know I've faced it in the gay community--push for gay rights, yay, let's go make signs; push for lesbian rights, yay, let's go march; push for transsexual rights, are you kidding?? What do you take us for?? The sever points get extreme and vitriolic.
Groups challanging the mental health system...
Date: 2005-08-26 06:14 am (UTC)As for the gay comunity, so far I've not experienced it dirrectly. Except being the only single trans lesbian in the queer community that I know of.
Jessica
no subject
Date: 2005-08-26 06:19 am (UTC)Well stated. The point that we keep returning to, in sorting out our own experiences (and the models we use to explain them) is that consciousness is subjective. If one takes this as the starting point, then it follows that reality itself is subjective... as the only means we have of interacting with "reality" is our own experience of consciousness. It makes sense, over here in Khailithaland, not to get hung-up on whose reality is more, or less, valid than my own. There is no doubt that the current psychiatric climate is one where an exclusive minority is defining for the population, as a whole, the validity, and even the legality (to the extent that basic human rights can be denied those who fall outside the norm) of an individuals consciousness.
One of the things I have always loved about this community is the level of acceptance of some wildly divergent viewpoints on the experience of multiplicity. Watching the conversations that happen here has been a wonderful paradigm shifting experience for me. Even when what is being discussed doesn't fall into any of the models that we are using to define our experience, I'm still quite touched by the degree of acceptance and support displayed by so many of the community.
It's exactly that sort of spirit that makes solidarity possible. If I wish to fight for the validity of my own belief system, my wierdness, my outside-the-boxness, how can I possibly condemn someone else's? It doesn't seem fair to ask society to accept me, regardless of my differences, while dispensing judgement over someone's elses unique brand of difference.
Now that I think about it, I think that is one of coolest insights that can be gained from sharing a body with people who don't think, feel, or act the way I do. In order to get along with each other, we've had to learn not only to accept the differences, but to actively support and celebrate them. Maybe that is why so many of the posts and comments here are so shiny... because they come from people who have learned, or are learning, how to function as a bunch of different people sharing a body. The way we get along, inside (for lack of a better word) is probably going to be a good indicator of how we get along outside too.
"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion." - Democritus of Abdera
(There. That's my 2ยข.)
no subject
Date: 2005-08-26 07:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-26 10:52 am (UTC)As I often say to people, psychology is only just a science, and it's sure as hell not an exact science. It's 90% guesswork. They only know what you tell them, and they kinda guess at problems and possible fixes based on that.
What's a delusion in the US or UK might be a perfectly normal experience in, say, Tibet.
And yes, it does suck when we start pigeonholing each other. Personal opinion like "I don't believe them" is fine and dandy, but writing people off in great swathes as 'insane' and 'delusional'. Meh. It seems stupid. Everyone is insane to someone else.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-26 02:56 pm (UTC)Shall we "work toward acceptance" in the case of the paranoid schizophrenic, or shall we attempt to find a way to help her? If we agree that she in fact needs help, what form should that help take? What about the case of the violently bipolar individual? The extreme narcissist?
How shall we define insanity? At what point should the treatment of insanity become mandatory?
I've noticed that many people in this community like to poopoo the establishment, particularly the psychiatric establishment, but I have noticed that rarely if ever do those people provide an alternative or a solution. So Sethrenn (or anyone else), what do you suggest? How would you modify the current psychological/psychiatric paradigm? Or what would you replace it with?
no subject
Date: 2005-08-26 03:03 pm (UTC)If their delusions are wierd as hell, but do not fuck them up, they do not need help.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-26 03:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-26 07:11 pm (UTC)A serious threat to others around them
Or a serious threat to themselves. Note, I mean a very very serious suicide type risk, not superficial self harm.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-27 06:42 am (UTC)Those who want therapy and/or medication should be allowed to have it.
If someone does not consider themselves to be suffering, and does not pose a threat to themselves or others, they should be left alone, no matter how 'bizarre' their beliefs are.
Two clarifications:
First, that 'delusional' persons who are genuinely dangerous to themselves and/or others should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Although such cases are relatively rare, and most violent persons are not delusional, they do exist (usually, it's sociopaths who tend to be truly dangerous). If someone has committed a crime, even if found not guilty by reason of insanity, they should be treated in the way any other prisoner should ideally be treated.
Second, one must be careful in these cases to distinguish between people who commit violence -because- of a 'psychotic' belief, and people who have such beliefs but happen to commit violence for more mundane reasons. If someone has a record of involvement in the mental health system, there is a tendency to point to their 'craziness' as being obviously the reason for their violent behaviour. Not everyone who is considered psychotic qualifies for the legal definition of insanity, however (inability to distinguish between right and wrong).
However, forcing a standard treatment on every potentially dangerous person is not necessarily wise. For one, standard treatment in most hospitals nowadays consists primarily of large doses of medication, usually including one or more antipsychotic drugs, even for patients who haven't been diagnosed with a psychosis. Some 'psychotics' can and have been helped by standard psychotherapy with no antipsychotics-- see http://laingsociety.org/colloquia/thercommuns/stillcrazy6.htm for instance. (While there were several highly-publicised cases of such patients a few decade ago-- Chestnut Lodge, for instance, where the only medication given to patients was to help them sleep-- nowadays most information on psychoses helped by psychotherapy are kept repressed by the industry in cooperation with the pharmaceutical companies, the better to promote their 'drugs are always the only solution' claims.)
The reasons why I feel such medication is a last resort are outlined pretty clearly in the link above. Taking these drugs is by no means pleasant, and the evidence that they can cause long-term neurological and health damage was something the corporations would barely admit to until recently (the recent Seroquel lawsuit, for instance). It's a lot like how tobacco companies worked to keep information about the link between smoking and lung cancer suppressed. And many hospitals are indiscriminate in their prescription habits-- the goal is often not to work with the patient's individual problems, but merely to keep them a compliant zombie. If someone is truly out of control, I agree that some sort of intervention is in order, but I do not consider the interventions which take place in most psychiatric institutions to be necessarily ethical or compassionate.
I suppose I have become increasingly postmodernist about this in the past year or so. I no longer feel that someone needs to subscribe to a generally-agreed-upon concept of reality in order for their life to be of worth and value. One of the 'psychotics' I've known was a beautiful artist and poet, and much of her talent, as well as her health, has been destroyed by the medications she was put on. I would rather that she have been allowed to continue to hear angels and messages for her on the radio, and have her art, instead of destroying her art because it was considered more valuable that she see 'reality' the way most people saw and perceived it. I do not subscribe to the idea of a 'connection between creativity and mental illness,' except insofar as that elements of many people's natural creative processes are seen as symptoms of mental illness nowadays. However, if an unwanted 'cure' would take away someone's intellectual or creative abilities, as in so many I've seen, and the aspect of danger to self/others is not present, I see no reason why they should be made 'normal.'
(modifying first post)
Date: 2005-08-27 07:19 am (UTC)The primary thing I'd change in the current industry is the excessive emphasis on drugging. Claims of genetic origins and 'mental illnesses are brain disorders' are far from proven in many cases, but, subsidised by powerful corporations, doctors continue to point to shaky studies (often funded by the same companies whose drugs are being promoted as the answer) as proving that talk therapy is of no use in treating common psychological problems. We ourselves were told on several occasions "your problems cannot be cured without drugs" (regarding OCD and depression), yet we proved the doctors wrong in that regard.
However, it's far easier to give someone a pill than to work with them on an individual basis.
If someone wants to take medication and believes it helps them, I do not think they ought to be denied their right to it. They ought to be realistically informed of potential side effects and risks, but I do believe that it's their fundamental right, and I would never claim that anyone who says they need medication is lying or brainwashed by their doctor. In fact, there have been times in our life when certain medications helped us, although the doctors who told us 'you need to take it for the rest of your life' were wrong.
http://www.narpa.org/greenberg.htm has some more information on Chestnut Lodge and Joanne Greenberg, author of "I Never Promised You A Rose Garden."
http://psychrights.org/Market/storefront.htm links several interesting sites, including personal accounts from people diagnosed with psychoses.
Re: (modifying first post)
Date: 2005-08-30 07:40 pm (UTC)As far as the "need to take it the rest of your life," most psychiatric drugs are NOT designed for long-term use.
Example : Dextromethamphetamine (Adderall). Used for the treatment of ADD. (Questionably at that) According to the original protocol, it is a three to six month duration of treatment. At this point, the
crystal methAdderall has usually permanently modified the brain chemistry, ostensibly to "normal ranges" rather than in "ADD ranges," but more likely it's damaged your brain and you're more compliant and "focused." No matter the case, it was never intended to be used for years on end, which is how it is most commonly used now.Just some additional food for thought.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-27 06:14 am (UTC)Hello,
I wanted to say that we've been lurking for awhile and this community has been so enlightening to us. We're in the process of determining a new system name to symbolize some transitions and system changes we're working on. When we do finally decide and agree *grins slightly*, we'll very likely officially join, because I/we have a number of questions and thoughts to post here.
Okay, with that said. I can't remember if I had this thought (the other day) associated with this post or not, but I think it's this one. This may sound off the wall, but it was a sudden insight I had with either this post or another similar post or comment someone wrote. The quotes above and your insight overall made me think of culture genocide. I know that the physical form of death doesn't occur, but in a way it seems like culture norms dictate (for lack of a better word) genocide for those who are believed to be delusional within their culture.
I think what really stood out to me is that "a certain type of person with specific approved beliefs...", and I couldn't help but think of Hitler and other groups throughout the world who have been involved in genocide because they had/have such beliefs. It's as though the marking/labeling of delusional and the marking of outcasts and so forth is in a way its own form of genocide.
I hope this comes across okay--it is just a thought I had that I'm grappling to grasp ahold of and express coherently.
Julie(s)
no subject
Date: 2005-08-27 06:54 am (UTC)That's a very astute observation. IMO, there is very little difference between the idea that the American Indians, for instance, needed to have their cultures destroyed and be assimilated into the white mainstream because they had 'achieved nothing of value' and their beliefs were 'absurd superstition', and the idea, for instance, that autism needs to be eradicated because autistic lives have 'no redeeming qualities' and 'achieve nothing.'
The attitude is the same-- the idea that outsiders are more fit to judge the quality and value of one's life than the person who lives it, and that poor wretches who don't realise they're actually living a life so horrid they barely qualify as human need to be forced into the mainstream for their own good.
(And your post sounds fine.)
no subject
Date: 2005-08-27 07:40 am (UTC)This is one of the things I value about this community: Intellectual stimulation. The varying opinions and perspectives and even the heated discussions all provide an opening of my mind and thoughtful contemplation about. Thanks again!
Julie
no subject
Date: 2005-08-31 06:55 am (UTC)This Party considers itself a subculture in its own right. Considering that some plural systems include entire communities or even civilizations, the idea of (sub)culture has rather different ramifications.
I've always been a little disappointed at the fact that there hasn't been more cooperation among groups challenging current psychiatric standards. Often it seems that people are more invested in feeling that their group has been specially singled out for persecution, or that the standards only need to be changed to redefine their group, but no one else's, as normal-- more than they are interested in solidarity with others who have been pushed outside the realm of the 'sane.'
I've noticed this, too, among groups in general which identity as "alternative" or "progressive". I tend to think, as a general principle, that if people should be free to be x, they should also be free to be y (as long as such is not actively violent or harmful), yet there seems to be a considerable amount of line-drawing.
One of my own goals is to gradually build some bridges -- for instance, introducing my New Age friends to the concept of plurality. I think one of the problems here is that people do have different paradigms and criteria, which sometimes collide.
For example: New Agers have a nondualistic worldview, meaning they do not regard self and other as metaphysically separate. A New Ager may not understand why saying something like, "You may think you're separate, but you're really all part of a greater whole," could be offensive to multiples. And so, wires get crossed.
Everybody accepting everybody else's nonviolent behavior is a noble goal, but it's not one we'll reach overnight. I think we have to go one step at a time.