Philadelphia is a city marked by incongruity, a quixotic city, a city glutted with symbols, and it is perhaps fitting that, here, the US branch of the International Society for Psychological and Social Approaches to Psychosis (ISPS-US), with all its contradictions, recently hosted its 17th annual conference.
The culture of Philly, too, is fitting. It is the subject of an absurdist play by David Ives, in which a character must ask for the exact opposite of what he wants; it is marked by the paranoid conspiracy-theory-bait “Toynbee Tiles” that have mysteriously appeared in its streets since the ‘80s; and it is famous for its divisive food, the cheesesteak, which you either love, or love to hate.
And it is here that the massive, cracked Liberty Bell resides, and it is this iconic image that the ISPS-US leadership chose to represent their conference this month. Their hope was that this image would symbolize the current state of mental health care for those struggling with psychotic experiences, and it did—but perhaps not always in the ways the leadership intended.
Indeed, the ISPS-US organization holds two main constituencies, who reside on opposite sides of a wide ideological divide. This schism separates those with lived experience of altered states from those who are treatment professionals.
The divide could be reduced to one question: are people who have experienced altered states “suffering” from mental disease, as many treatment providers believe? Or do people simply have varying differences in perception and expression, on a wide spectrum—and is it an abusive social order that ostracizes or destroys those who exist too distant from some valued norm?
That is, do mental health professionals need to improve their “treatments?” Or does society need to become more accepting of those experiencing altered states?
Although this ideological rift was sometimes contentious, it was almost always respectful and communicative. The true content of this conference, according to some of the attendees, existed in the margins, in the question-and-answer sessions rather than the presentations themselves. It was during this time that psychiatrists and psychologists might find themselves being challenged about their assumptions by people with lived experience—usually politely, and with reasoned arguments rooted in their personal experience.
Perhaps some of the conference attendees, those with lived experience, would have preferred another Philadelphia icon—fictional pugilist Rocky Balboa, whose bronze statue stands at the base of the Art Museum steps. After all, the message of that film set in Philadelphia is that the struggle itself—the struggle of the underdog against an established foe—provides meaning. You may not win that fight, but there is honor and victory enough in the willingness to defy the established foe and the stamina to go the full 15 rounds.
A Clash in Perspectives
The two sides of the clash were clearly seen after one psychiatrist, Irene Hurford, MD, presented on an “ethical dilemma.” She elaborated on the details of an adolescent boy with delusional beliefs whom she saw in her practice; this young man, with a history of familial abuse and neglect, eventually discontinued his medication after the failure of his grandmother to pick up the medication for him—at which point he no longer wished to be taking the medication, and increasingly seemed to be experiencing delusions of Armageddon. After this vivid presentation, in which Hurford expressed empathy and understanding for the complexities of this child’s experience, Hurford then framed her question around whether she should forcibly medicate this child. She spoke of his becoming a “different person,” his “lack of agency,” how he could not make a decision for himself anymore because he was experiencing an altered state.
This moment is emblematic of the conventional argument in psychiatry—the idea that an “expert” can observe when a person can no longer make “free” choices, at which point they may conclude that they do not need to listen or connect with that person any longer. The person is not in his or her “right mind,” and thus the “expert” may violate the person’s autonomy by forcibly hospitalizing or medicating them. The conventional argument is that this is done in order to restore the person to his or her “right mind,” and that may be seen by the expert as happening when the person has “more acceptable” thoughts and feelings.
Hurford’s presentation was quickly challenged by many attendees in the audience. “Stop having an agenda and defending it to the hilt,” suggested one attendee. Attendees decried the sense of “urgency” and suggested that Hurford might have patience and continue trying to connect with the child, continue trying to understand the child’s experience. Instead of taking away any shred of agency, suggested the attendees, Hurford might approach with curiosity, investigating the importance of the child’s delusions; investigating the failure of the grandmother to provide care; investigating the child’s dreams and aspirations—and joining with the child in working toward those goals.
Attendees suggested that Hurford look to the Open Dialogue approach made famous in Finland and elsewhere, which focuses on creating a holding, affirming environment for people experiencing altered states, and which relies on family and community intervention to reconnect individuals to others in their lives. Hurford dismissed this idea as too expensive. Likewise, another attendee noted that many other cultures have far better outcomes for people with psychosis than the US. “So you’re saying send him to a third world country?” Hurford replied. The attendee suggested that learning from approaches that work might be a better alternative.
After the speech, attendees to whom I spoke discussed their hopes that Hurford had listened to their critiques and praised her for being open enough to engage with the questions raised by the audience.
The keynote address the next day by Berta Britz, CPS, MSW, provided a counterpoint to Hurford’s plenary presentation. Speaking from her personal experience, Britz said that the psychiatric establishment “tried to teach me that my experience was behavior to be changed” and that “experts considered me a passive recipient, not a full human being with agency.”
“They destroyed opportunities to be curious,” she said. “My fear was met with their fear.”
This theme was repeated again and again by the attendees with lived experience. “I just wanted to connect,” said one attendee. “I was trying to communicate my intense pain,” said another. Theirs was a pain so intense that it could not be communicated with language; it could only be communicated through the code of psychosis. Over and over, attendees suggested that treatment providers listen and connect with people experiencing altered states, rather than try to “fix” or “treat” them.
The Meaning in Altered States
The conventional belief in mainstream psychiatry was summed up by one parent of a child with delusions, who said, “the psychiatrist told me that they were just gibberish and I should ignore them.”
However, this attitude was completely at odds with everything I heard from people with lived experience of altered states. Over and over, I heard that delusions, hallucinations, paranoia, all the “symptoms” of psychosis, are ways of communicating intense pain, and intense need.
At the same time as Aaron Beck, MD, the 97-year-old founder of cognitive therapy, was speaking about the history of cognitive therapy to a room full of mostly treatment professionals, something dramatically different was happening in another room at the conference. A slender, turquoise-clad woman was performing a one-person show about the experience of psychosis to a group mostly comprised of other people with lived experience. The writer/performer was Erin Soros, PhD, a noted Canadian author and academic, who has had her own lived experience of altered states. The text of the performance she gave is available in a book of non-fiction, and a video is forthcoming in the video archives of the Insurgent Architects’ House for Creative Writing at the University of Calgary.
Soros’ performance captured and explored the “disorganized speech” that is an emblematic “symptom” of psychotic states. As her narrative became more stream-of-consciousness, the language itself was deconstructed and re-constructed. However, rather than “nonsense” or “gibberish,” this re-constructed language crystallized into a deep poetry, expressing layers of meaning that could not be communicated through the use of regular narrative language.
In a discussion after the performance, Soros said that her altered state had been full of meaning, and that if mental health professionals had been curious, they might have made sense of what she was communicating. For instance, her obsession with the date of December 6 was taken as meaningless by her mental health providers in a UK hospital; however, in Canada this date has been memorialized as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. On that date in 1989, a male student murdered fourteen women and injured ten others in a horrific act of violence in Montreal. Soros says that her providers could have investigated her obsession with this date, and the way she was attempting to communicate the trauma she had endured at the hands of men in her life.
She wonders what else was missed in the failure of mental health professionals to be curious about the meaning of psychotic experiences. “I was on the ward with people from Rwanda and the Congo, for example—I wonder what went unheard in their associations.”
Soros also said that the particular delusion she experienced—that she was going to meet her friends and family at her wedding—was a way to communicate the desperate need for connection and love she was experiencing. Perhaps an approach like Open Dialogue, which brings family and friends together to connect with someone experiencing altered states, might have been a far more restorative experience than being forcibly hospitalized by strangers and chemically restrained. If psychosis is an experience of isolation, of disconnection, perhaps that sort of approach is exactly what is needed for healing.
This theme was epitomized by two distinct approaches to working with people experiencing altered states. The first, known as recovery-oriented cognitive therapy (CT-R), grew out of Aaron Beck’s cognitive therapy of the 1960s, and is an empirically-validated “treatment” for psychosis. As such, it operates on the basic assumption that altered states are a problem, an abnormality to be treated, and that there are particular interventions to “treat” this condition. The other approach is called emotional CPR (e-CPR) and grew out of the experiences of people with lived experience of altered states. This approach was presented as an authentic way to connect with human beings—for which healing was the side effect.
A concise way to delineate these two approaches:
- CT-R: There is a problem in this person, how do we fix it?
- e-CPR: There is a person, how do we connect?
The Current State of Cognitive Therapy
Aaron Beck looks like the elderly Roman emperor Tiberius, with short-cropped white hair and the charisma and authority due to him as the founder of mainstream cognitive therapy. With him were two of his protégés, Paul Grant, PhD, and Ellen Inverso, PsyD. Beck’s famous dry wit was undiminished, and he shone with authenticity. He spoke about the mainstream establishment of psychiatry as it was when he was a resident—a time when lobotomies were still considered “helping” people experiencing altered states.
Beck sees himself as something of a revolutionary for his cognitive therapy, which was one of the interventions making therapy a legitimate contender for “treatment” of “brain” disorders. However, at the time, he considered it useless for people with psychotic disorders.
In the early 1960s, when Beck began publishing his theories on cognition, psychoanalysis was the mainstream therapy. In psychoanalysis, psychotic experiences are viewed similarly to dreams—experiences that represent the deepest pains and desires a human can express. Psychoanalysis is, then, at its core, a witnessing—an attempt to hear the message beneath the symbol—which seems to be what the attendees here were craving.
At the same time, two other dovetailed approaches to mental health were also flourishing. In the early 1950s, Carl Rogers had already developed “humanistic therapy,” based on the belief that the only prerequisite for healing was the true witnessing of the authentic person. And the existentialists—led primarily by Viktor Frankl, whose work emerged from his experiences in a concentration camp during the second World War—straddled the line between humanistic and psychoanalytic approaches. They suggested that the individual’s awareness of existential pain, when communicated in authenticity, could relieve suffering, while the suppression of existential truths caused the symptoms of most “mental illness.”
In the context of those cultures of therapy, Beck’s cognitive therapy today feels almost regressive. He believed that people struggled because they had maladaptive—incorrect—cognitions. Their very thoughts were wrong, and only an outside observer—e.g. the therapist—could effectively contradict the experiences of his patients, and teach them how to think correctly.
Perhaps Beck’s reluctance to work with people experiencing psychosis came from their resistance to this form of therapy, which required that they should let a therapist tell them what they should feel, how they should think.
Intriguingly, recovery-oriented cognitive therapy is in some ways a walk-back of cognitive therapy’s differences from the other approaches of the 1960s. Grant and Inverso, in their plenary, described it as focused on experiencing a sense of purpose and meaning, moving people toward their aspirations. They even portrayed their therapy as closest in nature to that of Viktor Frankl, famed author of “Man’s Search for Meaning” and inventor of the existential therapy he called “logotherapy.”
But in the specifics of their assumptions, their intervention was still heavily inflected with Beck’s views. After all, their work is still a “treatment” for the “problem” of psychosis. Their belief is that warmth, human connection, meaning, and purpose are motivating factors that serve to “treat” the underlying “dysfunction” of altered states. Their dichotomous framing of altered states, it seems, leaves little room for the spiritual experiences, the encounters with the self, the communication, the symbols beneath the delusions. Instead, all of these are “symptoms” of a disorder.
The approach of emotional CPR, on the other hand, is truer to the assumptions of existential-humanistic therapies. E-CPR, although technically an intervention to be taught, is at its heart a way of being. Oryx Cohen, MPA, demonstrated the approach at the conference.
The core belief of e-CPR is that connecting with and empowering individuals heals emotional crises. Cohen demonstrated how to be with a person experiencing an emotional crisis, how to communicate—non-verbally—an authentic openness and curiosity without an urgency to “fix” that emotional state. Cohen demonstrated giving the other person the agency to decide what they needed, whether it was to experience that emotion or to calm themselves down. I was struck by the authenticity and compassion that Cohen emanated; a feeling of immense safety and connection that seemed restorative throughout the room.
E-CPR takes the premise that emotional crises are universal experiences existing on a spectrum. Certainly, psychotic experiences can be seen as extreme states, especially at their most intense. However, research tells us that hallucinations and delusions, paranoia, and withdrawn affect are all more common than we’d perhaps like to believe. Many people experience slight altered states which do not necessarily presage an eventual crisis.
It’s notable that e-CPR was created by a number of people with lived experience of altered states, crafting the intervention they wish that they’d been able to have. Contrast that with cognitive therapy’s basis in mental health professionals conducting “efficacy research” on people labeled as schizophrenic.
The premise of e-CPR is supported in the scientific literature. Research on the common factors model of psychotherapy has found that empathy and connection (often framed as the “therapeutic relationship” or patient-therapist “fit”) are part of every successful therapeutic “technique.” Researchers in common factors report that it may not be the specific “techniques” of various therapies that are effective, but instead these unifying elements of empathy, connection, validation of emotional states, and expectancy of improvement (or hope).
E-CPR serves to codify these common factors into an approach. It is a powerful melding of lived experience and scientific research into an approach that could be used therapeutically.
Approaches like e-CPR unified treatment providers with those with lived experience. It was in these moments that the conference appeared to thrive. Instead of an echo-chamber conference, in which treatment “experts” present to other treatment providers, and those with lived experience gather in their own rooms, the ISPS-US conference allowed for the clash of diverse opinions, which could sometimes amalgamate into something greater than the sum of its parts.
The chair of the program committee, Mark Richardson, PsyD, said that his intention was to create a space in which people with lived experience of altered states and treatment providers could connect, and thus where treatment providers could learn from those who have experienced “treatment.”
In this regard, the conference seemed to be an unmitigated success. Both ideological groups were presenting, asking questions of each other, listening to each other. The hopes, on either side, seemed to be that this is the space where change can happen. And here, at the ISPS conference, the treatment providers, the psychologists and psychiatrists, seemed to be listening with curiosity—just as those with lived experience of altered states advised.
And thus the conference could be said to be filling the crack in the liberty bell: It was helping to heal the rift between mental health treatment professionals and people with lived experiences of altered states.
Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.
What Hurford failed to take into account–since doing so would mean questioning the lies she has based her life on–is the teen was having severe withdrawals thanks to not being able to get his neuroleptic fix sooner.
Of course she thinks addictive, mind altering drugs are all “safe and effective life saving medications.” The kid’s not the only one with delusions. 😛
Glad meetings like this are possible now so shrinks are actually held accountable for their actions, albeit to a very tiny degree.
I didn’t make that connection at first, but yeah, duh.
What struck me about that exchange Hurford had with the audience member was the absurd comeback “So you’re saying send him to a third world country?” I read that and thought, “No, it’s you that needs to visit the third world country– visit their viewpoint, their way of looking at this.” Because her response was so condescending!
He probably would fare better in a third world country. Much higher recovery rate.
Well done Rachel.
Ms. Hurford could have put her patient on vitamins. That way, he’d have a means of modifying his dysperceptions that didn’t leave him semicomatose, while she’d have some of the social experiences her patient was having daily when her colleagues found out she was using a heretical treatment.
Ms. Hurford heard a youth express pain and confusion after childhood abuse; Ms. Hurford suggests drugs, you suggest vitamins, and I suggest justice. Good nutrition is far better “therapy” than drugs but pales in comparison to justice which was obviously lacking for this confused youth as he tries to transition from childhood to adulthood.
And WTH was he still living with his abusers? Psychiatry is great at aiding abusive family members it seems. Dates back to the Victorian madhouses.
The more things change the more they stay the same. Sigh.
TLC is what he really needs. But justice, and maybe vitamins are good too. Plus justice would deter abuse and reduce these “psychotic” cases.
Ms. Hurford suggests drugs, you suggest vitamins, and I suggest justice
That would be prohibitively expensive I’m afraid. 🙁
It is sad to understand that social and economic justice is limited by expense and that injustice is promoted by the myth of “mental illness.”
Yep, nothing wrong with our system, must be your mind.
The idea of the nutrients is similar to creating solid fortifications to withstand the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (sorry, William S, maybe it should be the shells and snipers, instead), while getting one’s psychosocial position in order.
Good nutrition may be better than psychotherapy but neither can “fortify” a child against traumatic abuse.
My heavens! If only these two groups wouldn’t work together (i.e. “mental health treatment professionals” and “people with lived experience”), we could call everybody “cured”.
Thank you for this valuable, articulate post.
Removed for moderation.
Btw what’s the going rate for caring sensitive professionals?
Remember the old song, “Can’t Buy Me Love”?
Insurance = unicorn repellant 😉
The Open Dialogue approach is “too expensive”? Listening and connecting to a client takes patience and compassion. Dismissing a person who has psychosis and controlling him/her through forced drugging and hospitalization is far more expensive and certainly degrading. The problem is with many “professionals” who like control and power and do not have the ability or just too lazy to truly empathize and connect. Why are we in the field if connecting and healing is not the purpose? It certainly is frustrating, humbling and painful at times to be in it with someone experiencing difficult emotional states and psychotic thinking, but certainly worthwhile and one of the most rewarding experiences I have ever had.
I was surprised to hear that Aaron Beck is still teaching at 97. I agree with writer that his approach is more “There is a problem in this person, how do we fix it?” versus a more humane and healing approach of “There is a person, how do we connect?”. Trust and respect in any relationship is essential. Thinking someone is broken does not create a healthy connection nor a healthy relationship.
Too many control freaks. Too little love.
“There is a problem in this person, how do we fix it?” Could also be rephrased, “This is a problem–not a person–how do we ‘fix’ it to make it more docile and compliant?”
In societal terms, pretending to “treat” someone with an invented “diagnosis” in the way we do is VERY expensive!
The overuse of the slash without spaces makes reading sometimes harder. Is this a hyphenated word, such as example-hyphenated or, (example–hyphenated) is this a slash? And the slashed out part of a sentence should be a violent departure or abrupt emphasising, not a gentle, or flowing clarification.
So, say I was writing a sentence — and I want your fucking attention — that is the kind of tonal departure that a slashed out section should be used for, not a part like this, which is gently explaining things in the thematic flow of what came before. In that case, it’s best to use commas, or parentheses.
Of course, grammar and language changes through constant mangling. But some punctuational rules are worth maintaining, for ease of reading.
People are entitled to believe that there’s some symbolic meaning in their psychosis. Some people enjoy ATTEMPTING TO SOLVE cryptic crosswords.
To solve a cryptic crossword requires the crossword to be set by a skilled cryptician.
So here we have an interesting slant on psychosis. Psychosis is a symbolic puzzle set by a skilled cryptician that has somehow lost the skill to decrypt their own encryptions.
A therapist is therefore some kind of encryption-breaker, a skilled decryptician.
Which must mean that my own experinces of psychosis have been enctrypted using complex elliptic curve algorithms that would take the most intelligent person several hundred million years to decrypt. Because I cannot make head nor tail of them and other people have claimed to have solved them, only to have performed the facetious act of filling in the crossword with words that fit and join up and match one another, but don’t actually solve the puzzle.
Also, it is not black and white. To have problems of the brain does not equate to having a disease. It’s not a unsolved puzzle versus having a disease.
For instance, traumatic brain injuries (I mean authentic ones, not histrionic ones) in childhood, can result in quite unfathomable developmental issues in the noggin, which even the most skilled cryptician would be unable to solve.
A traumatic brain injury is not a disease. It doesn’t create a disease. It introduces absurdo-cryptic elements to a person’s personality and perceptual and experiential *styles* that no-one — at least no-one of a humble disposition — can solve.
Odd (Scandinavian, pronounced “ot”) was terrified. He was walking home from a third group session of Foetal ReTRIB(e)utional A-waken-ing at his local Alienation Centre, and all the faces had become the meatus of a penis, and as he looked at each new passing stranger, each face was a meatus, and their hands were a meatus, and their necks a phallic shaft, and their eyes were like black pre-canecerous moles, and their hair thick strands of pubic growth.
“The world is turning to cock!” he shouted aloud, and a leathery meatus-faced man was in earshot and gave chase.
I will take that anecdote to the next ISPS conference — fleshed out, if you will — and request symbolic interpretations.
Well stated that “The problem is with many “professionals” who like control and power and do not have the ability or just too lazy to truly empathize and connect.”
“Professionals” with no ability to feel empathy or compassion, their ego and pride are of most importance and they hang onto power and control as if their life depended on it, do they have “narcissistic personality disorder?”
Very grateful for the professionals and bloggers on MIA that do want to heal people.
Psyche don’t need arrogant pseudo professionals and their fixation on ego control (desperate search for control). Psyche needs defenders, phenomenology and truth, not false empiricism, and control. Psychological man needs phenomenology not profession, because psyche is not a form of science. You, apollonians are destroyers of the psychological reality. Your scientism is your god. Psyche do not need scientism and drugs, IT NEEDS THE REAL IMAGE AND HUMILITY.
Psyche do not need theology, rationalism. Theology +rationalism+ pseudo medicine = false empiricism.
WE NEED TO REVISE PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY and we need the resurrection of psychological man.
Profession has got nothing in common with the REAL IMAGE OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY,EGOIC AUTHORITARIANS have stolen it. They, as the least psychological and extremely arrogant and materialistic species, have robbed psychological man of his rights. They have robbed psychological reality for their egoic needs ===MONEY, POLITICS AND CONTROL.
PROFESSION KILLED PSYCHE AND EMPATHY, SHALLOW APOLLONIANS HAVE KILLED PSYCHOLOGICAL MAN FOR MONEY AND THEIR SHALLOW NEED OF CAREER.
WE WERE ROBBED FROM A RIGHT TO BE PSYCHOLOGICAL BEINGS BY EGOIC FUNDAMENTALISTS.
End of the story.
James Hillman “Re-Visioning psychology”.
Hi Peter, thanks for writing up this summary of your impressions from the ISPS-US conference. I was also there, and I do agree with you that it was an interesting intersection of professionals with people sharing and drawing from their own experiences.
One difference in my reaction: I didn’t see as much conflict as you did between the views of the professionals and the people with lived experience.
For example, you defined Beck’s approach as seeing problems that need to be fixed, rather than seeing persons with whom we need to connect. But what I saw was that Beck’s approach was all about connection. They talked about how they had been working to come up with an approach that would work for the most aliented people – as they put it, to help the person in the corner who won’t communicate with anyone, and who has been disconnected for a long time. Their approach was all about trying to build connection with that person, and then supporting that person in connecting with others, and Beck specifically said he believes in being person centered, not symptom (or problem) centered.
Of course, Beck’s approach didn’t come out of thin air: he and his team admit it came about largely by listening to people with lived experience in the “recovery movement.”
The experience labeled psychosis is documented to be caused by:
1) 100+ bona fide medical diseases such as thyroid and Lyme called “medical mimics” and more recently by Kelly Brogan as “psychiatric pretenders”
2) 500+ prescriptions drugs taken as prescribed as well as Adverse Drug Events to street drugs
3) numerous common experiences such as lack of sleep, dehydration, vitamin deficiencies, being on a ventilator or in hospital (esp for seniors) exposure to environmental toxins
This is why a differential dx list must be created, tested for and ruled in or out, why the DSM (pathetic piece of junk science it is) states that SYMPTOMS (which are NOT diseases) better understood to be caused by biological diseases can NOT be used towards a mental illness diagnosis. (This proves they know their imaginary diseases are not biological.) And it why by law one must get treatment for biological diseases prior to be psychiatrized, labeled, drugged and having your life destroy to benefit some quack ass drug pushing fraud.
Want to talk about what got left out in the article above see 1, 2 and 3.
There is no uniform “experience labeled psychosis,” but yeah.
However the answer is not to push for “reforms” or different ways of tweaking the system. Our energy should be invested in abolishing the system completely, as it has no legitimate function.