@Silvia Price – Well, no kidding. Antidepressant drugs are known to cause metabolic abnormalities, and one can only be labeled “treatment resistant” if they have a substantial history of taking psychiatric drugs, so therefore it would make sense that nearly every person in that study would have a metabolic abnormality of some kind… caused by the drugs.
Hi Laurie! Thank you so much for sharing this beautiful story. You have clearly gained so much insight & wisdom from your experiences that I’m sure many others can relate to & learn from as well!
“You’ve suffered more than your body stood a chance to bear.”
Wow, this is all so relatable. The only part I can’t relate to is the happy ending of finally having your trauma named & acknowledged & validated. I must say, I’m a little jealous of that. Glad you got that, though. Everyone deserves it.
Thank you for writing this & sharing your experience.
I couldn’t tell whether “belief in a fair economy” meant “belief that the economy SHOULD be fair” or “belief that the CURRENT economy IS fair” until I read the article & realized it was the latter.
I also couldn’t tell if “linked to greater mental health stigma” meant “linked to HOLDING more stigmatizing beliefs” or “linked to being on the RECEIVING end of more stigma” — again, had to read the article to realize it was the former.
Beautiful piece, Steve. Thank you so much for writing this heartfelt essay. Grief is definitely something that needs to be talked about & acknowledged more in our death-phobic, emotion-phobic society. But certainly not swept up under the ever-expanding umbrella of “mental health issues!”
Kevin, thank you for this lovely response! I really appreciate your kind words & will try to take their message to heart.
I certainly will keep writing! I have already written a full-length poetry collection, as yet unpublished. (Apparently most publishers aren’t terribly enthusiastic to invest in a work that openly discusses suicidality & psychiatric abolition — who knew?!) I’m also thinking of writing a memoir one day, and perhaps some other non-fiction works on the MH system and/or eating “disorders.” I’ve always wanted to write at least one novel, too, ever since I was a kid. So I definitely have some ambitious dreams in that area! It’ll probably be decades before I’m able to accomplish all that, though…
In the meantime, I plan to continue submitting my writing to MIA occasionally. I have a substack as well, so you can follow me there if you want (it’s free!): https://substack.com/@madradrecoverybaddie
Again, thank you for taking the time to read this series, and I really appreciate your thoughtful comment! I hope it made a (positive) impact on you!
John, thank you so much for these kind words! I really appreciate you taking the time to read my story & leave such a thoughtful comment.
Wow, it means a lot to me that you would pass along my work to your family & friends! I certainly hope I can help others feel less alone by giving voice to their experience; that is always one of my goals in sharing my writing & art. I hope to continue doing that for the rest of my life!
Hi Birdsong, thank you for sharing that insight! I actually do agree somewhat, though in my opinion, intense spiritual experiences can certainly be transformative by prompting us towards that kind of change. But it is up to us to then carry out these newfound values in our daily lives through slow, gradual, grueling implementation. This is, of course, the less ‘glamorous’ part of healing/transformation.
Though I am quite familiar with that aspect of the process, that is not what I chose to write this piece about, nor the 3-part series of which it is a part, which is specifically meant to be about my experiences going on & off of medication. I did mention at the end of this piece (if you recall) that this was “only the beginning” and “the most difficult parts of my journey had yet to come.”
Perhaps one day I will write another piece about that — including the painstaking, day-by-day, bite-by-bite process of nursing myself back to health from near-starvation, the heartwrenching grief of peeling myself free from multiple abusive relationships one-by-one, the existential horror at unlearning almost everything I’d believed to be true about life, relationships, the world, society, myself, etc, and the humbling labor of rebuilding my entire life & identity brick-by-brick after ‘burning it all down.’ However, as I am still actively going through this process, it may be a long time before I am 1) ‘finished’ with it, whatever that means, and 2) ready to write about it for a public audience.
Though I never claimed to be a ‘perfect,’ spiritually enlightened being (nor will I ever be), and I am very fallibly human & still learning every day, I do think I’ve acquired quite a bit of wisdom through this process so far, and I look forward to sharing it one day. In the meantime, I would invite you to share your own personal story on MIA, as you seem so passionate about this subject matter! I would love to hear how you carry out those values you mentioned in your own life! Here is the link to their submissions page: https://www.madinamerica.com/submitting-personal-stories/
In summary, though I disagree with the notion that the intensity of a spiritual experience means nothing, I do agree that the (transformative) value of my experience wasn’t inherent, but what I chose to make of it. Which makes it a testament to my character, not to the experience itself.
“Contrast”…? “Tone of my reply”…? I’m totally lost. Did I offend you in some way? I thought the tone of my replies has been respectful & honest. I still don’t understand what it has to do with the title of my piece. Besides, I think the content of my work matters more than the title I have chosen for it.
I won’t be responding to any further replies on this thread (for real this time). I don’t think the conversation is going anywhere productive at this point. To reiterate: I respect your beliefs & appreciate your perspective. I hope you found some value in reading my story.
Tamar, first of all, thank you for your kind words!
So actually, I already wrote about (some of) my therapy experiences in my first article on MIA, which was published last year. Specifically, it is about my experience with eating disorder therapy.
I have not written about my therapy experiences pre-psychiatrization, or the other therapies I received while psychiatrized. I do not wish to elaborate at this time.
In the pieces I’ve written, I’ve shared what I felt comfortable with, and what I felt was relevant to that part of my story. None of them are comprehensive accounts of my experiences with the mental health system.
It is very emotionally difficult to write pieces like this, digging up some of my most painful traumas for all the world to see, while also trying to craft a coherent, compelling narrative. I hope you can understand & respect that.
If I do write & publish another personal story about my therapy experiences in the future, it will be on my own accord. It will not be a part 4 of this series. I intentionally wrote this as a 3-part series.
I do not work for MIA or represent them in any way, so I can’t speak to your last comment. But like I said above, I have written about my experiences/criticisms of therapy on here before.
Birdsong, I do not understand what is “curious” about it at all. Having different spiritual beliefs than you does not negate the spirituality of my experience, nor does it contradict my title. My experiences, my beliefs, my narrative, and what I chose to title it, are not open to debate. I respect your beliefs, and I would appreciate it if you could respect mine. Let’s leave it at that.
Birdsong, I am glad you found a worldview that resonates with you, regardless of whether you choose to label it as a “religion” or not. I’m not trying to split hairs over semantics, and I hope it didn’t come across that way. I think this conversation may be getting a little off-topic anyways, so I’m gonna end it here, but I’m genuinely happy for you for finding what works for you, and I respect the differences between our beliefs.
Buddhism is widely recognized as a religion, even if you don’t personally see it that way. I’m glad you found Buddhism helpful for you. I did not necessarily find it helpful for me, but I appreciate & respect your perspective!
Funny you mention it, I actually did take an Intro to Buddhism class in college as an elective. Unfortunately, it did not resonate with the headspace I was in at the time, and even caused further distress. I think this may be in part due to some of the therapy & self-help I’d experienced co-opted Buddhist teachings to fit a Western, medicalized framework. So I’m a bit traumatized by it! But I always try to keep an open mind about different ways of seeing the world (including religion), so I’m open to revisiting it in the future! And there are definitely aspects of it that I remember learning about that I do resonate with & appreciate.
Thank you for your kind & thoughtful comment, Rosalee. And I am really glad that you resonated with my story & found value in it (though I’m obviously not glad that you went through something similar with psychiatry!). That’s part of why I decided to write this — to connect with others with similar experiences — so it means a lot to read comments like this.
Thank you, Ruby, I really appreciate this comment. My purpose in writing this was not only to express these experiences for myself, but to reach others as well, so I’m glad I was able to do that for you.
Thank you, Birdsong. Me too, honestly. Like I’d said in part 2, I’d lost all spiritual belief until this point, but going through this experience catalyzed a re-invention of myself & everything I believe in, including the divine.
I’m curious what you mean by “negative emotion.” Why doesn’t this apply to “positive emotions” as well? Are people also “irrational” (whatever that means) in positive emotional states? Why or why not? Or maybe people are only “rational” when they are in a completely “neutral” mental state– neither positive nor negative?
Is is it really preferable that one is “brought up” out of the “negative emotion band” permanently? I certainly don’t think so.
And is the “biggest problem” truly when it motivates “criminal” behavior? Is lawful behavior always the same as moral behavior? (I don’t think so.) And are negative emotions always necessarily what motivates such behavior?
I know that’s a lot of questions, but your comment really got me thinking & raised some very interesting points.
That’s a really good question. While I do wish I had been warned, I also don’t know if it would’ve made the experience itself much easier to bear. I mean, the pain of withdrawal itself couldn’t be prevented, though at least I wouldn’t’ve blamed myself for it so much, and that self-blame alone was the source of much of my suffering.
It’s hard to imagine my own experience having gone any differently, especially my journey in questioning & challenging psychiatry for myself. That couldn’t’ve happened if someone had warned me in advance. You’ll see what I mean in Part 3 (which is up now, by the way!).
Thank you so much, Ruby, I really appreciate it. It’s so difficult to even put what withdrawal is like into words — it seems to transcend the confines of language in many ways — but I’m glad I was able to do so in a way that resonated with your experience.
Part 3 just went up this morning if you want to read the rest!
Hi, thank you for leaving this comment! I’m so sorry you had that experience. That’s ridiculous that the doctor tried to convince you that “psychosomatics” were separate from “psychiatry.” Sounds like he definitely didn’t know what he was talking about! I’m really glad you asserted yourself & didn’t fall for it though.
By the way, Parts 2 & 3 are up, if you want to continue reading! I hope you find value in those as well.
Thank you so much for reading & leaving this kind & thoughtful reply, Rosalee. “Damned if you do damned if you don’t” definitely describes how I used to feel all the time. I hope you find value in Parts 2 & 3 as well.
Hey Ann, for some reason my reply to you showed up at the bottom of the queue as an independent comment, instead of as a reply under your comment. Just wanted to let you know!
Thank you so much for your kind & thoughtful comment, Ann. I’m really sorry you went through all that as well, and glad you seem to have found a way out.
Thank you so much, Birdsong! I really appreciate your kind words & will try to take them to heart. It’s been a rough journey, and still isn’t over yet.
By the way, like I told Someone Else above, parts 2 & 3 should hopefully be going up sometime later this week, if you’re interested in hearing the rest.
Thank you for your kind comment. I, too, resonate with song lyrics, and so I really appreciate you sharing those. Do you know the name of the song? I’d love to look it up.
By the way, there will be a part 2 & part 3 to this story, probably coming out sometime this week, so stay tuned for that!
Thank you for your kind words, Steve! I always enjoy reading your insightful comments. I would also be interested to hear others’ experiences with this pattern, as it seems to be a common one (though not talked about nearly enough).
Thank you for reading & thank you for your kind words!
Normally, I prefer to create my own artwork, but I didn’t have time on this one. So I told MIA my idea, and I believe they executed it using an AI program they typically use.
@Richard: And THIS formerly severely suicidal person found getting the hell away from psychiatry to be life-saving! Maybe THAT should be the standard treatment, eh?
But seriously, I have some food for thought for you. Barring eating “disorders” or substance use “disorders” (which are the only “mental illnesses” with direct medical consequences), name one “mental illness” that you can actually DIRECTLY die from. Technically the mortality rate of all “mental illnesses” should be zero, right? Because it’s not the “illness” itself that kills a person, it’s suicide (or other causes). But we don’t count suicides as part of the mortality rate for any other illness, do we? And if psychiatry is just like any other branch of medicine, then why do you think this is the case? For example, if a person labeled with depression kills themselves, we say the depression is what killed them & count that as part of depression’s mortality rate. But if a person with cancer kills themselves, we don’t say they died of cancer. We say they died by suicide. It’s not considered part of cancer’s mortality rate; that would be absurd. In fact, people might even say they died because they must’ve been “depressed” or had some other “mental illness” that was “undiagnosed” while they were alive. So why the double standard?
If “mental illnesses” were real, caused by biochemical malfunctions in the brain — what some consider to be the most important organ in the human body — you’d think there’d be a way to die of them DIRECTLY if left “untreated.” Why do you think there isn’t?
There’s that False Equivalence logical fallacy again! Just because you can apply a certain argument to war, doesn’t mean you can apply the same argument to anything else labeled “barbaric.”
Let’s replace war with a different barbaric act. How about child abuse? Rape? Slavery? Lobotomy? Are those ever “just” or “necessary”? I would hope the only way you would consider answering that is with a resounding “OF COURSE NOT!” So just because you could argue that not all things considered “barbaric” are always bad, doesn’t mean that all things considered “barbaric” are NEVER bad. Would you say, “well war is considered ‘barbaric,’ but it is sometimes just or necessary, so therefore child abuse/rape/slavery/lobotomy is sometimes just & necessary, too”?? So then why would you apply that logic to ECT or other forms of “treatment”?
Okay, Richard, I was mostly with you in the beginning, right up until you said this: “Giving ECT to a floridly psychotic patient who has not benefited from meds is ethically defensible ( leaving aside the consent issue for the moment) if the primary intent is to improve the psychosis.”
Let’s break this down.
First of all, define “benefitted” and “improve.” According to whom? According to the patient? Because they’re the only one who should be deciding what “better” means to them. They’re the only one whose opinion matters in their own treatment. It doesn’t matter if you think they’re “crazy” or “incapable” or what. That’s just your editorial bias. Believe it or not, not everyone who hears voices or sees things others can’t wants to get rid of that. Some individuals find meaning or significance in these experiences. Others simply learn to live with it. These experiences are not INHERENTLY negative or destructive to all who have them.
Second of all, what do you mean “leaving the consent issue aside for the moment”? How can one EVER leave that aside?? I have no more words for that at the moment.
Moving on, you say, “The MIA report uses quotes in its report, which suggests a possible editorial bias rather than a more journalistic stance. I don’t think it’s out of line to use a term like treatment-resistant schizophrenia for someone who isn’t benefiting from reasonable and standard meds. If you don’t think schizophrenia exists, or that meds are appropriate ( if not coerced), then the quotes make sense, but you’re still putting your finger on the scale.” Interesting. So you don’t see that believing in “treatment-resistant schizophrenia” or “schizophrenia” or “meds” & using those terms without quotation marks is also a bias? You see that as inherently neutral, and anything that deviates from that default is “bias”? You don’t realize that the very concept of “schizophrenia” or “mental illness” or “treatment resistance” is NOT neutral, but a collection of politically weighty social constructs devised to uphold racism, misogyny, homophobia, ableism, and colonialism, both historically and present-day? That purporting these cultural ideas as objective facts & exporting them around the world is ITSELF a form of modern-day colonialism, eugenics, and cultural erasure?? Interesting.
Now onto what you said about ECT. Memory loss is not a rare side effect, it’s not only short-term, and it’s not the only side effect. In fact, even “side effect” is a misleading term. For any kind of psychiatric treatment — whether it’s drugs or a shock to the brain — there are no “side” effects, only effects. We’ve simply decided which of those effects are desirable or undesirable, but that doesn’t influence their probability of occurring. For example, according to some research, SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction is more common than the drug’s ability to relieve depression! But when it’s being prescribed as an “antidepressant,” we call sexual dysfunction a “side effect.” However, when it’s being prescribed “off-label” to treat premature ejaculation, we call elevated mood a potential “side effect.” Same drug, different framing. In fact, if you read Robert Whitaker’s “Anatomy of an Epidemic,” you’ll learn that most psychiatric drugs were originally designed to treat something else, before they observed elevated or calm mood as a “side effect” in a certain percentage of patients, and then they got the bright idea to repackage & market the very same drug as an “antidepressant” or “anti-anxiety medication.” Anyways, I digress. Basically, the same thing applies to ECT. Both memory loss & a reduction in “symptoms” are neither “side effects” nor “main effects,” they are simply potential effects. Lastly, please type “ECT” into the search bar of this site & read literally any article that comes up. I think that’ll change your view of it pretty quickly, if you’re open-minded & willing to have your view changed. I’ll link a few down below for your convenience:
@Richard: Huh, that’s interesting. Maybe they weren’t sure what they were going to change it to yet. Well, now ya know what the new guidelines are, at least.
Anyways, I hope you enjoy reading the “Fuck Nuance” paper!
Thank you for your reply. You’re right in that i was probably jumping to some conclusions in my critiques made above. I recognize that this is a relatively short piece focusing on one particular issue, and is therefore limited in scope, nor is it representative of your overall views. However, where are you getting the idea that you are limited to only 1200 words? I’ve seen you mention this at least twice now. As someone who’s written for MIA before, I can assure you that there is no submission type (that I’m aware of) that has an upper limit of 1200 words. In fact, even under the new guidelines, the submission type with the lowest MINIMUM requirement still has a lower limit of 1250 words. (If my memory is correct, the old guidelines were 1500-3500 words for all blogs/essays.) For blogs, you can write up to 2500 words, and for essays, up to 5000. Hopefully that helps so that in your next piece you won’t feel so rushed.
@Richard, I second what Steve says, and also wanted to add onto it. You’re approaching each “condition” as though it is the same problem & would therefore require the same solution, correct? Well, there are no “conditions” in psychiatry, only “syndromes.” By definition, every mental “disorder” in the DSM is a cluster of “symptoms,” not an explanation of their underlying “pathology.” That’s part of what makes “mental health” so fundamentally different from physical health. Surely, as a psychiatrist, you know this, right?
Okay, so Person A and Person B may both have the same “Condition X” — let’s say it’s depression. But they very well may have nothing in common beyond that. If the reason underlying Person A’s depression is a toxic workplace, and the reason underlying Person B’s depression is childhood trauma, do you really believe they both need the same treatment? Well, according to what you said above, they do, simply because they share a diagnosis! Let me go even more specific: Let’s say a new study comes out that says 70% of depression patients experienced improvement after quitting their current job, compared to 45% of those in the control group. (I’m keeping the numbers consistent for simplicity’s sake.) Well, that might make it the hottest new “evidence-based” treatment for depression! So as a psychiatrist with two patients presenting with depression, you would recommend both patients that treatment, since they share the same “condition,” right? But regardless of what the “evidence” shows, common sense tells us that that treatment is only going to work for one of those patients — Person A — because it directly addresses the cause of their depression, whereas it has nothing to do with the reasons for Person B’s depression! On the other hand, what if the “evidence-based treatment” in question is some form of trauma therapy or psychodynamic therapy? Well, in that case, it’s probably going to help Person B more than Person A, because it does nothing to help Person A’s ongoing workplace situation, which is the source of their distress.
I guess the only way one could honestly look at mental health & physical health in a comparative way is by recognizing that “mental health disorders” are SYMPTOMS, not diseases themselves. So one physical health ailment that might be comparable is a fever. A fever is not a “condition” in & of itself, it is a symptom that can have many underlying causes. It may actually inform very little about treatment. If you have two patients who both present with a fever, would you give them both antibiotics? What if one of them has a fever due to the flu, and the other has strep? Well, since strep is a bacterial infection, and the flu is a virus, antibiotics would only be effective in one of them, even though they may both have a fever & other overlapping symptoms.
Another physical symptom that could have many potential causes: abdominal pain. But what if we treated abdominal pain as a disorder itself? And what if we found that “Abdominal Pain Disorder” improves in X% of patients after removing their appendix? Are we gonna just go around giving everybody who has abdominal pain an appendectomy now? Well, it’s the “evidence-based treatment” after all! But obviously it’s only helping X% of patients because those were the percentage of patients whose abdominal pain was caused by appendicitis in the first place! What about the others? What about someone whose abdominal pain is caused by pregnancy? Menstrual cramps? Celiac disease? Or maybe they just had really bad gas? Well what if we found the most effective treatment for “Abdominal Pain Disorder” to be Gas-X? Should we just give all patients a prescription of Gas-X and send them on their way? I’m probably beating a dead horse at this point… you get the idea…
In summary, anything “mental health”-related is a SYMPTOM, not a “condition,” and symptoms, whether mental or physical, are signals that something is “off” in a person’s life or body. Treat people as individuals, not “disorders.”
Thanks for your reply. I hope you enjoy reading the paper. I thought it was relevant because you mentioned the need for “nuance” and “shades of gray” (especially in your analysis of critical psychiatry).
If your essay were only about groupthink, and how it can become a problem in any or all groups if left unchecked, then I would totally be on the same page as you. However, you appear to be saying & implying a lot more than just that.
I’ll elaborate a bit on those 3 fallacies and where I found them in your essay.
1. Middle ground fallacy — “Both mainstream psychiatry and critical psychiatry are missing possible chances to find some common ground.” … “Both are partially right. Both should correct each other’s excesses without invalidating everything the other believes.”
Though you don’t use the word “middle ground” specifically, you are alluding to it with words like “common ground” and “correct each other’s excesses.” The underlying premise of the middle ground fallacy is the notion that the truth/ best possible solution must always lie in the middle of two extremes or opposing positions, ignoring the possibility that one or both sides may be entirely correct or entirely incorrect.
2. Straw man fallacy — “[Groupthink in critical psychiatry] can lead to absolute judgments about mainstream psychiatry, such as ‘medication is always bad,’ ‘no diagnosis has any validity,’ or ‘all psychiatrists are manipulated by drug companies.'”
It’s easy to dismiss an argument if you put it in such black-and-white terms: “always,” “never,” “all,” etc. I rarely, if ever, hear critics of psychiatry making such statements seriously. Most of us acknowledge that SOME people may feel helped by medication, not ALL psychiatrists are evil, etc. However, I would have to disagree with your portrayal of “no diagnosis has any validity” as a false statement. If we’re talking about scientific validity, that is simply true. If we’re talking about some other type of validity, then I don’t even know what you mean by that.
3. False equivalence — “Similar to how mainstream psychiatry often views critical psychiatry as having little merit and can’t or doesn’t ‘understand the full picture,’ it’s also true that some within the critical psychiatry world see mainstream psychiatry as without merit, harmful, evil, greedy, and acting with no scientific or other basis for what it does.” … “Although there’s no way to measure which group’s groupthink is more problematic, fairness calls for critical psychiatry to look inward if we’re going to demand that of mainstream psychiatry.” … “How powerful these forces are is open to debate, but to say they’re nonexistent would be akin to saying they don’t occur in mainstream psychiatry.”
Comparing mainstream psychiatry’s pitfalls to critical psychiatry’s pitfalls is like comparing apples to oranges. First of all, without acknowledging the institutional power that mainstream psychiatry holds over critical psychiatry, you’re inherently tipping the scales in mainstream psychiatry’s favor, portraying both sides as “equal” when that is not the case at all. It’s a bit absurd to claim that “there’s no way to measure which group’s groupthink is more problematic,” and that “how powerful these forces are is open to debate” when one side CLEARLY has more social & economic leverage than the other, and thus, more widespread harms.
The first things this piece brought to mind for me were these three logical fallacies:
1. The middle ground fallacy
2. Attacking a straw man fallacy
3. False equivalency
I highly recommend reading and/or watching those if you’re bored and have 45+ minutes to spare.
Anyways, I have a lot more thoughts on this piece… not sure if it’s worth my time to share them all here though. I might have more to say later, might not, we’ll see.
How is that any better than using antipsychotics, like the article was talking about?
I especially take issue with the notion that the purpose of these medications isn’t for the benefit or “peace of mind” of the patient, but the staff. The “peace” it brings the patient is only by putting them at lower risk of maltreatment by inadequately trained staff who do not know how to understand or respond to behavioral issues in someone with dementia.
This sort of thing isn’t exclusive to elderly care homes, it also happens in the foster system, psych wards, the education system, and in dysfunctional families. It’s not about helping the person in distress or “acting out,” it’s about making them more convenient & palatable for those around them.
If someone’s kindness towards me is contingent on them drugging me into sedated oblivion so that I’m nice & “manageable” for them, then we have much deeper problems in our society.
I know this is an old comment and the likelihood that this will be seen is low, but I just wanted to chime in here & say that I really disagree with this framing & can provide several counterexamples which could not be explained by it.
First of all, I’ve heard this before — that antidepressants “don’t cause suicide” and the only reason why they may “appear” that they do is through the same mechanism of action by which they make someone “anti-depressed”: they simply “increase motivation.” This is, in my humble opinion, boloney. From my personal lived experience, I felt less motivated than ever on antidepressants. I felt numb & dull & uncreative & had no desire or motivation to do anything. THIS was a contributing factor to my suicidality, because it was a miserable way to live!!
Second of all, if it were true that antidepressants don’t cause suicide, they just enable it by motivating pre-existing suicidal feelings into action, then how do you explain people who have no history of suicidal ideation whatsoever & then kill themselves after being on an antidepressant for a couple weeks? Especially when it’s prescribed off-label, because then you can’t say, “well it was just their underlying depression.”
Third & finally, what about suicides caused by the withdrawal effects? Many people don’t attempt suicide while on the drugs, but right after going off of them. This cannot be explained away by the drug’s “motivating” effect– the drug is no longer in their body. It’s clearly an effect of the withdrawals.
As much as I love seeing alternatives to the drug-based approach, there is one caveat I want to add here based on my own lived experience. Hopefully this won’t come across as a re-enactment of the “bean soup” video, but I have a feeling I’m not the only one out there who feels this way, so I’m just gonna share my perspective.
As an eating disorder survivor, I cringe a bit every time I see a headline about exercise as a treatment for depression because of the things that I was told during my own struggle with these so-called mental “disorders.” When I would go in for my depression/anxiety checkups, my doctor or psychiatrist would often ask me if I was exercising, or encourage me to exercise. They didn’t consider the idea that exercise could be part of the problem in my case– and in the case of many eating disorder patients. I was already exercising 1-2 hours per day, nearly every day, on top of eating very little. This combination of undernutrition & overexertion was contributing to my mental distress, which they were busy trying to treat with drugs for a fictitious “chemical imbalance” I didn’t have. Yet I kept hearing “keep exercising” or “exercise more.” This was VERY HARMFUL!!! I don’t think I can emphasize enough how harmful it was.
So no, exercise is not “virtually risk-free” for everyone. I think it is very important to consider how much a person is ALREADY exercising, whether they are eating enough, and if they have a past or current eating disorder. This may sound like a very niche issue to some, but I think it’s important to discuss, because so many people with eating disorders end up with a dual-diagnosis of depression/anxiety, or vice versa. It’s not as rare as people think.
The left, on the other hand, is deluded into believing that promoting “mental health treatment” IS social justice. It’s seen as the de facto “compassionate” stance. After all, who could be against “mental health,” right?
I’m not saying it never happens. Some hurt people go on to hurt others. Some don’t. And many people who hurt others are not doing so because they were/are hurt themselves. I think it’s a myth that abuse (always) causes people to become abusive, or that (all) abusers were abused.
As Steve said, abusing others is always a choice.
Trust me, anyone who knows me would tell you that I’m not a person who assumes the worst of others. Quite the opposite, actually. (Sometimes to my own detriment.)
Exactly. This is why I can’t really get behind sayings like “hurt people hurt people” or “all abusers were once abused themselves” or “you know they’re only acting that way because they’re insecure/miserable with their own life.” Like, no actually, they’re not the secret underdog/victim here! They’re feeling pretty damn good about themselves & that’s why they feel entitled to treat other people like shit! They’re pretty happy & satisfied with the status quo. Though it may be a superficial kind of happiness because they’ve severed themselves from the part of their humanity that is capable of experiencing deep joy & love, and their “satisfaction” may come at the cost of never TRULY being satisfied with anything because nothing’s EVER enough for them– but still, that doesn’t make them the secret victim of it all somehow!!
Wow, this is one of the best articles I’ve read on here in a while. This really helps answer that question so many of us have: Why do most self-proclaimed “liberals”/”progressives”/”leftists” endorse psychiatry & misunderstand the psych abolition movement, when they so aptly recognize other human rights violations & stand against THOSE forms of oppression & support THOSE social justice movements? Why aren’t they able to see the parallels? It make me think of the prison abolition movement & how so many supporters believe in “increased access to mental healthcare” as an alternative to the prison industrial complex, totally oblivious to the realities of the mental health industrial complex.
My only concern is that the conclusion of this article makes it sound kind of hopeless. Like every megamachine or oppressive system will one day be replaced by another, so there’s no use in even fighting it. I don’t believe that. Mostly because I don’t WANT to believe that. I’m sure many would call me naive or idealistic. But I think we can do better. How will we know until we try?
That’s kind of ironic. If anything it seems like psychiatry has taken advantage of the internet to spread its propaganda even faster. Have you seen what’s been going on over on TikTok & Instagram for the past few years? It’s not the anti-psychiatry movement that’s spreading like wildfire, that’s for sure…
The reason why I call it professional gaslighting is because the entire premise of CBT is that your thoughts & feelings are out of alignment with reality & therefore need to be “corrected”. The literal definition of gaslighting is “causing someone to question or doubt their own perceptions, feelings, powers of reasoning, or sanity, often leading to dependency on the perpetrator over time.” It can include tactics such as psychological manipulation, denial, trivializing feelings, and blame-shifting.
So let’s break it down: How is CBT a form of gaslighting? Well, first of all, by labeling a client “mentally ill” in the first place, you are causing them to doubt their own sanity. The “perpetrator” in this case is the therapist, and by telling the client not to trust their own thoughts, they render the client dependent on them (the therapist) to tell them (the client) what reality is. As a professional, licensed by the state, they get to be the authority on what reality is & isn’t, while you, the “mentally ill” client are deemed an inherently unreliable narrator or reality. Huge power imbalances like these are practically a set-up for abuse.
You said CBT has been “…[proven] effective for conditions like depression, anxiety, PTSD…” I would like to challenge your conception of these as “disorders.” There is no such thing as a brain-based “illness” such as depression, anxiety, or any other so-called “disorder.” If someone is feeling anxious or depressed, it’s most likely directly caused by things objectively going on in their life. To imply that their “depression” or “anxiety” “disorders” are simply a result of their own “maladaptive” thinking is both absurd & cruel, denying the objective reality of their external circumstances.
Let me give some examples:
– a LGBT+ teenager who is “depressed” because they are being bullied at school
– a single mom who has “anxiety” because she’s working 3 jobs just to pay the bills, and never gets to spend time with her kids
– a woman surviving domestic violence who has been labeled with “bipolar”
Do you think these individuals are truly “mentally ill” & just need to change their thinking? Are their thoughts & feelings actually “maladaptive” or “unhealthy” or even “inaccurate”? Or are they a reflection of their current reality? Would it even be ethical to ask these individuals to change their thinking to better adapt to the abuse, rather than working to stop the abuse and/or help them escape? This applies to systemic issues as well– instead of working to end systemic oppression (e.g. homophobia, transphobia, class oppression, misogyny), we apply a “bootstraps mentality” of victim-blaming & hyper individualism, where individuals are blamed for their circumstances & told that their only obstacle is from within.
I think there’s a fine line between challenging pathologizing language and splitting hairs over semantics. True, ‘addiction’ is a label. ‘Drug use’ is also a label. ‘Tall’ and ‘short’ are labels; so is ‘young’/’old,’ ‘asleep’/’awake,’ and ‘apple’/’orange.’ Because ALL words are labels. That does not diminish their usefulness, or the realness of the things they are meant to represent. You could call it ‘addiction’ or ‘drug use’ or ‘behavior’ or ‘purple people eater syndrome’ if you want; as long as you are referring to the same phenomenon, it doesn’t matter what words you use. ‘A rose by any other name’ and all that. And this thing we call ‘addiction’ or ‘drug use’ undeniably is a real phenomenon. It’s more than just a label, and it’s more than just a behavior or choice, because chemical dependency & psychosocial factors influence a person’s behaviors/choices in ways beyond their direct control.
I was thinking of you & your story when youtube decided to suddenly show me this video! It’s only about a minute long, and I wanted to share it with you & others here because you might relate to this person’s experience with kinds of attitudes & beliefs people hold about “schizophrenia.”
Robert, I do not know if it’s true that having an eating disorder is not as dreadful as having schizophrenia. I haven’t had both experiences, and I don’t think it’s worth arguing who “has it the worst.” I will say that being LABELED with an eating disorder is probably not as dreadful as being LABELED with schizophrenia. I already acknowledged that schizophrenia is far more stigmatized — arguably the most stigmatized among all psychiatric labels — yet I refuse to pretend like eating disorders are not stigmatized at all. Or that they cannot be as traumatic or potentially life-ruining (and health-ruining).
I do not recall if anyone’s ever said it directly to my face, but I’ve definitely heard people say things like eating disorders aren’t real, or that people with EDs are just faking/making it up for attention, or just fundamentally misunderstand what EDs even are. People have said to my face that they don’t think MY eating disorder is real, that I don’t really have one, including doctors. I’ve also been praised by others for being “healthy” when I was literally starving myself to the point that my hair was falling out and my bones were showing.
Trust me, it’s pretty dreadful to be pondering your own mortality at 22 years old when suddenly realizing that you don’t actually want to die once you fear it might be too late. It’s pretty dreadful to be now 24 years old and still partially disabled by the damage your eating disorder has left on your body.
Again, I don’t want to compare experiences, but I also refuse to downplay mine. You seem very self-assured in asserting that eating disorders aren’t as bad despite admitting to know nothing about them. I personally can’t imagine being that confident in making assertions about something I know nothing about, let alone assertions that compare/downplay someone else’s experience. Perhaps you could read my personal story or other ED articles, like I’d suggested, for a better understanding.
Christine, I’m so sorry you went through that, and I didn’t mean to raise any triggers for you. Like I said, I definitely agree that there are people who are falsely/unfairly labeled “manipulative,” and it sounds like you’ve been one of them. I have been too, and I can actually relate to aspects of your story. It sounds like your abuser was the real manipulative one there! Again, I’m so sorry you went through all that.
I hope you had a nice time at the conference! Sounds very cool!
@Joanna, I can see where the misunderstanding might’ve come from in my earlier comment. What I meant was that I don’t believe eating disorders are “mental illnesses,” like so-called “schizophrenia,” and I don’t think they are caused by brain disorders. Not that I don’t think eating disorders are real. The set of experiences and behaviors that we label as “eating disorders” in our society are certainly real.
Btw, I was antipsychotics (or “neuroleptics” as you call them) as well, even though I didn’t have psychosis or a schizophrenia diagnosis. They were prescribed to me “off-label.” So I am quite personally familiar with the harms.
I also agree with what you said above regarding everyone’s right to interpret and/or label their own experiences as they wish. And I disagreed with other commenters who were criticizing Robert as well.
@Joanna: By the way, I realized that I didn’t respond to the part of your comment about psychosis vs schizophrenia. I want to clarify that I’m not denying the existence of the experience of what is called “psychosis.” That is very real and I know many people experience it. I simply don’t agree that it is an “illness” or even a “disorder.” I also don’t believe in dividing mental states into a “normal” vs “abnormal” binary; I simply see it as all part of the continuum of human experiences (including those brought on by trauma). Of course, you’re entitled to frame your own experiences however you want.
Exactly! Not to mention that diet culture promotes a super fucked up idea of what “healthy eating” is, so many eating disorder behaviors are normalized and seen as “healthy.” Ya wanna know how many times I was praised or even envied for being “healthy” during my anorexia? More times than I can count!
Robert, I will not deny that schizophrenia is more stigmatized than eating disorders. In fact, I think schizophrenia is arguably the most stigmatized of any psychiatric label. But I think a lot of your other assertions about eating disorders are false, and quite frankly, rather offensive.
You say that “an eating disorder is not so frightening.” Did you know that eating disorders have the second highest mortality rate (just behind opiate addiction) out of all psychiatric diagnoses? Did you know that every 52 minutes 1 person dies as a direct consequence of an eating disorder? As someone who nearly starved myself to death just over 2 years ago, I can assure you that eating disorders can be absolutely terrifying.
As someone with lived experience with an eating disorder, the solution is NOT that simple, though it may SEEM simple to someone who has never had an ED & doesn’t know much about them. Eating disorders can stem from complex trauma, fatphobia/diet culture, and a myriad of other factors. They are often a way of coping with immense emotional distress — like substance use or self-harm — and therefore it’s not that “simple” to “just stop.” It’s not about “learning to eat a healthy diet” either — in fact, many eating disorders actually stem from an obsession with eating “healthy.” Furthermore, after starving myself for years, there are physiological effects that do not go away overnight. One such effect is that your digestive system literally atrophies from underuse & malnutrition, making eating & digesting extremely physically painful. I’m still dealing with these effects over 2 years into recovery.
Even though (like I said) eating disorders are not as badly stigmatized as schizophrenia, they are still very VERY stigmatized. Depending on how outwardly visible your ED symptoms are (not everyone’s are), there is a high chance that you’d be judged on appearances alone at a job interview without even having to disclose the fact that you have an eating disorder. This could definitely impact someone’s ability to get a job. A lot of people hold harmful biases about people with eating disorders, including that we are “unstable,” “fragile,” “attention-seeking,” and less capable and less competent.
Additionally, eating disorders rarely happen in isolation, so they are often accompanied by trauma histories, self-harm, suicidality, substance use, and other psychiatric labels — all of which carry their own set of stigmas. Carceral psychiatric intervention is quite common in eating disorder treatment, similar to schizophrenia, and because of their medical complications, forced medical interventions may occur as well. All of this can result in spotty work histories from being in and out of hospitals or treatment centers.
I personally never went inpatient or residential (largely because my family could not realistically afford it), but I still experienced trauma as a result of the eating disorder treatment I had. I was coerced into taking multiple psychiatric drugs, including antipsychotics, and I had to fight to break free of psychiatry’s grasp & recover on my own.
Please be mindful next time before you make assumptions about other peoples’ psychiatric labels or experiences that you may be less familiar with. I don’t hold it against you, but I did find your comment really insensitive and minimizing of what I’ve been through. I was hoping a fellow psychiatric survivor would be more understanding.
If you want to learn more about eating disorders, I’d recommend you read my personal story, or one of the other articles I’ve written on here. Perhaps that will help you gain some perspective on these issues.
Joanna, I find your reply rather offensive. I don’t need someone to tell me that “there are really people who starve themselves/make themselves throw up/etc.” It feels like you think I am ignorant and do not know what eating disorders are. I don’t just know about them; I have lived them.
They are not “clearly” disorders any more than any other so-called “disorder.” Are they behaviorally normative? No. Are they physically healthy? No. But does that mean they are brain diseases? Also no.
Similar to “schizophrenia,” many people do believe that eating disorders are lifelong & incurable, especially after one or more “failed” recovery attempts. It’s probably not as bad as the stereotypes about “schizophrenia,” yet there is still a lot of stigma and pessimistic assumptions about prognosis.
I’d recommend that maybe you read one of the articles I’ve written on this site about eating disorders to help you gain a better understanding. Then maybe you’d realize that they’re not “mental disorders,” and are indeed reactions to trauma/distress, much like other so-called “mental illnesses.”
Christine, I didn’t ignore it, and I don’t disbelieve you or think it’s unimportant. I wrote a pretty long reply, and I couldn’t cover everything. I agree that an extreme increase in emotional “baggage,” as you call it, would intensify emotions & thoughts. But I thought we were talking about behaviors? Specifically abusive/narcissistic behaviors? Sure, our emotions/thoughts may affect or motivate our behaviors, but they are still a separate category.
I have my own lived experience too, as does nearly everyone here. I, too, have experienced extreme emotional distress and had to figure it out for myself, since the “professionals” and their “books” messed me up even more. I think we’re on the same page more than you realize. Basically what it comes down to is “everyone’s experience is different,” as I tried to convey before, and I think we are simply coming at the same idea from different perspectives.
From what I’ve seen, the “emotional baggage” and “insecure bully” narratives are wayy more predominant in psychology, psychoanalysis, and society in general; my theory is presenting more of a challenge to those dominant ideas. I just mentioned the class/research to show that I’m not making this up out of nowhere — not to undermine my argument by aligning it with mainstream psychology.
The first thing I’ll say is that neither your experience nor my theory is going to singlehandedly account for every individual’s experience. I’m sure that what you’re saying is sometimes true (as it was for you & your friend). I’m also sure that what I’m saying is sometimes true. So we’re both right, in a way.
However, I also think there’s a difference between crisis/trauma response and actual abusiveness. I think our differences of opinion can be explained by the fact that you’re describing the former while I’m describing the latter. The behavior may look the same on the surface, but context, motivations, and overarching patterns may differ. For example:
– Traumatized response: Lashes out when feeling powerless & out of control.
– Abusive behavior: Lashes out to assert power & control over others.
– Traumatized response: Needs to prevent their autonomy from being taken away again.
– Abusive behavior: Needs to take away others’ autonomy.
– Traumatized response: Anger/superiority/etc is a method of self-defense.
– Abusive behavior: Anger/superiority/etc is a method of domination.
I also want to clarify that there are many ways for a behavior to be learned. Being taught that one is superior by being treated as superior is only one way. However, behavioral modeling is another way behavior can be learned– and this can be witnessed second-hand. For example, perhaps an abused child doesn’t grow up to feel superior or narcissistic because they were “taught” to; perhaps they learn from their environment or from society that those kinds of attitudes/behaviors will earn them power, admiration, safety, control, etc.
Forgive me for citing another psychological study, but it reminds me of the famous Bobo doll experiment. The children didn’t beat up on the Bobo dolls because they were abused or emotionally repressed, nor did they do it because they were taught to feel superior. They did it simply because they saw the adults do it first and learned to model their behavior.
Joanna, my confusion/curiosity is not due to a lack of understanding. I understand that there is no convincing proof that “schizophrenia” is a mental “illness,” or even exists at all. But that is not unique to “schizophrenia”; it is true of all so-called “mental illnesses.” Including eating “disorders.” I was pointing out the double standard.
I don’t know if this comment will ever be read/seen, since this is now a relatively old post, but it suddenly occurred to me that no one here on MIA has ever taken issue with my choice to self-identify as someone with an eating disorder the way that commenters here have taken issue with Robert’s choice to self-identify as someone with schizophrenia. I wonder why that is.
@Birdsong: I hear you, but sometimes I get tired of always “looking within” & relying on self-care, self-compassion, self-understanding… I think it’s reasonable to want (and need) some of it to come from other people; we are social creatures after all. Though I agree, therapists are not the way to go!
@Steve: Gotcha, thanks for articulating that! Just to clarify, I still think it’s a really important skill/mindset to have and don’t want to discount that!
Hey Steve, I think one’s ability to “screen for” such qualities can be a valuable skill, as much as a luxury that many cannot afford. I first started therapy as a teenager, so my mother selected my therapist(s) for me. As a minor, I didn’t get a choice in the matter, and even once I was older & in college, my autonomy was limited as long as my parents held the purse strings. In addition, sometimes the very reasons that bring someone to therapy can be the reasons that they fall victim to the potential abuses of therapy. Pretty much every relationship & setting in my life up to that point had conditioned me to “perform” & worry about keeping the other person happy/satisfied. It was the only dynamic I’d ever known; how could I have known to look for something different?
I know your comment wasn’t making a personal judgment of me or anything, but I just wanted to use my own experiences as an example to add another dimension of nuance 🙂
I completely agree with the latter part of what you said! Anyone can provide a “therapeutic” conversation– as long as they know how to listen– no special qualifications required. But that key caveat: as long as they know how to listen… many unfortunately don’t.
I think what you’re describing definitely can & does happen, and I think that the recent explosion of pop-therapy jargon around “narcissists” has contributed to this problematic usage.
However, I’ve also seen “narcissist” used in a vastly different context, where it is describing a pattern of abusive/exploitative behavior marked by self-centeredness. To me, this is not saying it is “innate” any more than calling someone an abuser implies innateness. Much like “abuser,” “narcissist” (in this context) is not a permanent label so much as a descriptor calling out harmful behavior. It’s not “scapegoating” if the blame is justified. I mean, I don’t think people should also stop calling abusive people “abusers” because it might hurt their feelings!
Whether a “narcissist” or “abuser” is created through mistreatment or social outcasting is a whole nother conversation. If society is “stigmatizing” them for abuses they have already committed… well then, I think you’d be confusing cause & effect in that case. But if you’re saying that being abused/mistreated causes people to become abusive/mistreat others– which is a popular idea– I’d have to disagree. I don’t think abusers/narcissists are created by being told they are less than others; I think they are created by being taught they are superior to others & thus entitled to impose their will on others. The “insecure bully” explanation makes for a nice story, but I remember learning in a college psychology class that it is actually a myth; research has shown that bullies demonstrate much higher levels of self-esteem, on average.
(Real life example: Donald Trump. Or literally any billionaire. They are arguably the biggest abusers/exploiters/narcissists on the planet. Do we really think that’s because they were the most mistreated/excluded in childhood? Or because they were raised to think they’re better than everyone else & entitled to impose their will at all costs?)
On the other hand, genuinely unjustified scapegoating & mislabeling of victims as “narcissists” is definitely a thing that happens. However, I think of it as being similar to how labels like “manipulative” often get falsely applied to folks in emotional distress/crisis. Though this is wrong & harmful in these cases, there is also a real such thing as manipulative behavior, and I don’t think the solution is to say that nobody is ever manipulative, or that we should all stop saying “manipulative” altogether.
Yeah, I felt like I was always “performing” in therapy. Like I was being graded & had to get an “A”. Maybe similar to what you’re describing as feeling like a circus animal.
Honesty, empathy, humanity, understanding– I completely agree. Those things can be hard to come by in our culture though.
Hey Steve, that wasn’t my intention. Sorry if it was getting off-topic. I was just saying I agreed with Birdsong for the most part, yet I can also see what Olga was getting at by trying to make the distinction. I was in no way trying to compare one to the other as better/worse! They obviously both suck!
Clarification: I understand the distinction between “trauma” and “abuse” in the context of Olga’s argument in the video, and I agree with the gist of what she’s saying in that regard, but I simply define those words differently for myself.
I’m really curious to hear more about your thoughts on peer support work, if you are willing to share. I definitely agree when it comes to peer support work that happens within the system, and how it becomes co-opted by the system (as was mentioned in the video), but I also know of peer respites and other peer support organizations that are not connected to the psychiatric system (as Olga identified herself as belonging to) — except perhaps by channeling people *away* from it. What do you think of those? What would you suggest is a better way to build alternatives to psychiatry?
-Jasmine
P.S. I also disagree with the supposed distinctions between “trauma” and “abuse”. To the body/nervous system, they’re virtually the same. The distinction is a semantic one, not a somatic one.
This article is fine, but nothing revolutionary for MIA. Perhaps the target audience is someone a bit newer here than I am.
The author presents people’s experiences within the mental health system in a binary way: Either you went the therapy route, or you went the medication route. The implication being that those who went the medication route were never offered therapy, and thus wound up feeling as though they had no control or responsibility for their recovery outcomes. However, the reality is that there is so much crossover, and many of us who were harmed by psychiatric drugging did try therapy first and/or were continuing to go to therapy while on meds.
As for the author’s perspective on therapy, I’m glad he had a good experience. But that is certainly not everyone’s experience. Therapy can do harm as well. It can also disempower, encourage emotional suppression, and make people feel “broken.”
Also, I understand that maybe it wasn’t the main focus of the essay, but Sal’s story sounds a little too good to be true. So he stopped psychiatric drugs cold turkey and didn’t experience any withdrawals? And all it took was one youtube video to convince him? And if his depression was “spurred by life events,” as the author aptly notes, it makes me wonder what they were, and if/how Sal was able to work through them. Surely it wasn’t instantaneous as the author portrays it.
Of course, different words mean different things to different people, but to me, the word “control” in the context of recovery — such as “He could control his own outlook,” and “Sal regained control” — has a connotation of suppression or domination through sheer willpower. In many ways, recovery is often about relinquishing control. Psychiatry (and therapy in my experience) is the one that teaches us our emotions are something to be “controlled.” Perhaps “agency” or “free will” would be a better word choice.
I hope I don’t sound overly critical; I agree with much of what this article has to say. We absolutely DO need a culture that embraces emotion instead of numbing it!
The author sounds very earnest, passionate & young. (Though I am close in age myself, I feel much older because I’ve been through a shitstorm.) I’m sure his ideas will develop & mature with experience. Best of luck to him!
Research & statistics reflect population averages, not individual experiences. I’m not necessarily talking about the poorest of the poor. Not everyone who is, say, middle class or above survives the mental health system. Not everyone who had “access” to the same “choices” or “resources” as a survivor did ends up surviving themselves. Does agency count for nothing, in your opinion?
You said earlier that “Having pride in our survival is understandable but ignores and excludes those who failed to survive.” First of all, that’s simply not true. At the last Mad Pride event I went to, a large part of the time was spent commemorating a member of the local Mad community who had just been shot and killed in his own home the week before. There was a memorial tent set up where people could mourn the loss of his & others’ lives. I think there is definitely a place for grief & remembrance of those who’ve been lost to psychiatry in the context of Mad Pride; they’re not mutually exclusive.
Second of all, the notion that we shouldn’t do anything that those with the least amount of “privilege” wouldn’t be able to participate in because it would be “excluding” them sounds a little absurd when the “un-privileged” in question are literal dead people. I mean, there’s not much that *doesn’t* exclude them.
You said that “Talking about survival as if it was a choice is pretty insensitive in my opinion.” Of course it’s more than “just a choice.” I don’t think any of us are in disagreement on that. But to me, it’s just as insensitive to discount a person’s survival and chalk it all up to mere “luck.” You also said, “As hard as your struggle has been, you were able to make the choice…” Ah, but there’s the key. Not everyone who is “able” to make that choice *does.* A lot of people give up. That is not to “victim-blame” anyone. But I think we survivors deserve to take some credit for our resilience, after all the world has taken from us. “those of us who have survived… no matter how hard we feel we have it, are just lucky…” That little word “just” reads as inherently discrediting & invalidating. Again, not everyone even with the same amount of “luck” or “privilege” would’ve survived similar circumstances.
I recently read the book “The Perils of ‘Privilege’: Why Injustice Can’t Be Solved by Accusing Others of Advantage” by Phoebe Maltz-Bovy, and I highly recommend it. Here’s a relevant quote: “The biggest glitch in the privilege framework is the it-could-be-worse component… this supposedly hypersensitive way of looking at the world manages to be incredibly dismissive of any plight that isn’t quite as bad as another.”
I think your apt comparison to what happened to Vietnam vets, as well as what you said about not jumping to conclusions/assumptions about people, is very well-put.
Steve made some really great points above. I second all of that.
The idea that our current human-made environment is “built for” the majority of the population is demonstrably false. First of all, which one? There is no single “environment” across culture, time, and place. Human society is not one static monolith. And it evolves far faster than the human genome, so if ADHD is truly a genetic brain abnormality, then how do you explain that?
Furthermore, the assumption that any given human trait or experience always follows a normal distribution pattern is unfounded. First of all, I think we need to unpack that word & the idea of statistical averages. If you google the word “normal”, you will be able to see that the word usage over time ramps up heavily in the late 1800s/early 1900s and peaks around mid-20th century. This was largely due to the eugenics movement. In 1943 — around peak usage — eugenicist Robert Latou Dickinson designed statues named “Normman” and “Norma” based on the statistical averages of 15,000 men and women (respectively), all aged 21-25 years and racially white. According to the eugenics movement, it was believed that being closer to statistical averages (based on samples of exclusively young, white people) inherently meant being closer to ideal health.
The first edition of the DSM was published 11 years later, in 1952.
I think it’s worth noting that a large part of this obsession with “normal” originates from eugenicism, and therefore, bigotry. It’s also worth noting that industrial-capitalist society is not natural or “built for” 99% of humans. In fact, I would argue that society’s not built by/for the 80%, it’s built by/for the 1%. And I think we all know which 1% I’m talking about.
I am firmly pro-Palestine. I also resonate deeply with Yishay’s writing and believe he has a right to share his story. These two truths are not mutually exclusive.
We must remember to be “soft on individuals, hard on institutions.” As Yishay said, we cannot always divide the world neatly into “villains” and “victims.” Maybe in a broad political sense, but not when it comes to individual human beings.
We also can’t always divide the world into a binary of “privileged” and “oppressed.” What happens when a so-called “privilege” is its own form of oppression? It is my understanding that military service in Israel is compulsory.
Furthermore, if you’re a non-indigenous American insisting that Yishay’s story shouldn’t get a “platform” on MIA because of who he is, then posting a comment on MIA yourself is hypocritical. Do you publicly “reflect on” your relationship to colonialism & genocide every time you post here?
Furthermore, how do you know he doesn’t feel remorse or reflect on these things offline? If he shared these reflections publicly, I’m sure he would then be accused of being “performative” or “centering his own feelings” instead.
Lastly, what would be accomplished by such a “reflection” or by de-platforming Yishay altogether? What’s the goal here? Would it end the genocide? Meaningfully advance Palestinian rights? My guess is no. He’s just one person after all.
Your writing always brings me to tears, in a good way. Thank you for sharing it. I love how your style is poetic, yet minimalist. You never overexplain, you simply speak the truth.
This entire piece — but especially the line “or maybe I just learned how to hide the limp” and then what you say about the “cruel optimism” of the “promise” of healing — reminded me of a song I wrote a couple years ago. I would like to share it with you (headphones recommended): https://youtu.be/ZVeOum6c6zs?si=mMHAXN6KSiPWw7IE
Idk if this comment will get posted or not, because it has drifted too far off topic, but I just wanted to say: Honestly, you’re kinda right. I was projecting a bit & leaping to some conclusions based on my own perceptions & personal feelings. I am truly sorry. Poetry/art means a lot to me, and it’s hard not to take these conversations personally. I didn’t mean to cause any harm or hard feelings, and I hope you’ll accept my apology.
I think you’re forgetting that the word “Mad” itself — as in “Mad in America,” “Mad Pride,” or “Mad Rights Movement” — is a reclaimed label that has historically been used to dehumanize & justify violence. We are not the first social justice movement to make use of such linguistic reclamation of derogatory terms or slurs. (E.g. the LGBTQ+ community reclaiming the former slur “queer.”)
That sounds similar to how Robert explained his relationship to the label of “schizophrenia.” In another comment, he said, “Insisting that I am a schizophrenic is my way of proving that psychiatrists are wrong in saying that schizophrenia is incurable.” Sounds like a radical act of narrative reclamation to me!
People still use the language of “illness” metaphorically in such contexts. They may not call it “marital detachment disorder,” per se, but people use words like “healthy”/”unhealthy”/”toxic” to describe relationships all the time. These are all different versions of health/sickness metaphors.
Not sure why you’re bringing this up. Is your intention to compare this piece to David Ingelby’s paper? Are you implying, therefore, that this piece is “overwrought,” “inaccessible,” and that only those who are highly “educated” and “skilled” can “interpret” it?
No one else in the comments complained that this article was elitist or inaccessible. No one else seemed to have a hard time understanding it. Maybe this article wasn’t for you. That doesn’t mean it’s bad or wrong, nor that those who did connect with it must be a certain “type” of person. Do you know the educational background of every person here in the comments, and how their educational background compares to your own? I had no trouble understanding it, and I’m a 24-year-old with only a bachelor’s degree. Roughly 40% of American adults share the same level of education as me or higher. Is that really such a “select few”?
Perhaps it doesn’t have to do with level of education so much, and really comes down to individual understanding and preference. It’s okay to just say, “I didn’t get it.” Or to simply say nothing and move on. But just because you didn’t understand and/or connect with something, doesn’t mean it is “inaccessible” to the “average person.”
You said “…feelings best communicated silently… through the ache that doesn’t need translation, the kind that’s TRULY ‘unspoken’.” That’s nice and all, but how exactly would you propose one communicates without words in a written article?
By the way, I commend your use of poetic language and metaphor in your very condemnation of poetic language and metaphor! “…addiction — a drug accessible only to a select few… cocaine for the intellect… perfume for the ego…”
Sincerely,
Jasmine
P.S. I’m quite curious as to what your exposure to poetry has been, and why you must have such a negative view of it. The way it is often taught in the education system is downright awful, and I believe that’s why most people become turned off to it. If you have 11 spare minutes, I’d highly recommend watching this video (with an open mind): https://youtu.be/FjwJQ0NVyYc?si=BG0gbcnrdJkwptSR
I disagree. First of all, many of my favorite articles/blogs/personal stories on MIA are from several years ago, and are what I would consider very “well-spoken,” “poetic,” etc. To say that MIA “has become” this way is to imply that it didn’t used to be. That is simply not true.
What also confuses me is the notion that “academic” or “poetic” language is somehow antithetical to speaking “plainly” or “clearly.” Why must these be mutually exclusive? To the contrary, any *good* poetic (or academic) writing uses language/metaphor to clarify, not to obscure. I am curious as to where your ideas about poetry/academic writing come from.
I’ve noticed a trend of commenters wanting MIA to be a “safe space”/”sanctuary” for “real survivors” with “lived experience” to express themselves freely in their “authentic voice,” while simultaneously criticizing other survivors (usually the author) for using the language that feels right to them — be that poetic, academic, diagnostic, or otherwise. Hypocritically, this inadvertently undermines the welcoming, survivor-centered, censorship-free environment that they claim to advocate for. I thought our whole schtick was letting people self-define their own story without imposing our own opinions/beliefs/worldviews on them or insisting that they conform to our preferred way that they communicate (i.e. what psychiatry does).
Not a single positive comment here was praising this article for its “cleverness.” You were the first to bring that up. Instead, they found value in this piece through its humanness, relatability, and connection. Is that not the desired outcome of survivors sharing their voices with one another? What would you prefer instead?
Yes, the author is also a very good writer. Would you rather her be a poor writer? I do not think the piece would’ve been nearly as effective, or her effect on other (real, human, survivor) commenters/readers as profound. It’s true, not everyone possesses these gifts. Life’s unfair. But I think that’s all the more reason for those who have them to share them. One commenter literally said the “article really spoke to [them] in ways that are hard [for them] to put into words,” and another said “You’ve given voice to the quiet ache many of us carry.” The purpose of writing/art is not always to perform or “show off” or as an “ego trip,” but to communicate & connect with others (who need it) as well.
If you’re looking for articles that are written in what you call “plain” language, there are plenty of others you can find on here. I regret to inform you that that they will still likely be well-written. Of course Mad in America is going to “favor” those who are good writers; it’s a journalism outlet! If you want a place for indiscriminate venting, I suggest you visit Reddit (they actually have some thriving anti-psych & anti-therapy subs!).
Thank you for your kind words, Steve! I hope it resonates with whoever needs to hear it.
Report comment
@Silvia Price – Well, no kidding. Antidepressant drugs are known to cause metabolic abnormalities, and one can only be labeled “treatment resistant” if they have a substantial history of taking psychiatric drugs, so therefore it would make sense that nearly every person in that study would have a metabolic abnormality of some kind… caused by the drugs.
Report comment
Hi Laurie! Thank you so much for sharing this beautiful story. You have clearly gained so much insight & wisdom from your experiences that I’m sure many others can relate to & learn from as well!
Report comment
“Creativity abandons me”
“Medication that made my body no longer my own.”
“Make sure to budget for collapse.”
“You’ve suffered more than your body stood a chance to bear.”
Wow, this is all so relatable. The only part I can’t relate to is the happy ending of finally having your trauma named & acknowledged & validated. I must say, I’m a little jealous of that. Glad you got that, though. Everyone deserves it.
Thank you for writing this & sharing your experience.
Report comment
Hi Laurie!
Oh my gosh, I was just talking about you today! What a coincidence!
Thank you for taking the time to read my series. And yes, I’d love to get coffee soon — let’s get in touch!
-Jasmine
Report comment
Very ambiguous & misleading title!
I couldn’t tell whether “belief in a fair economy” meant “belief that the economy SHOULD be fair” or “belief that the CURRENT economy IS fair” until I read the article & realized it was the latter.
I also couldn’t tell if “linked to greater mental health stigma” meant “linked to HOLDING more stigmatizing beliefs” or “linked to being on the RECEIVING end of more stigma” — again, had to read the article to realize it was the former.
Report comment
Beautiful piece, Steve. Thank you so much for writing this heartfelt essay. Grief is definitely something that needs to be talked about & acknowledged more in our death-phobic, emotion-phobic society. But certainly not swept up under the ever-expanding umbrella of “mental health issues!”
Report comment
Kevin, thank you for this lovely response! I really appreciate your kind words & will try to take their message to heart.
I certainly will keep writing! I have already written a full-length poetry collection, as yet unpublished. (Apparently most publishers aren’t terribly enthusiastic to invest in a work that openly discusses suicidality & psychiatric abolition — who knew?!) I’m also thinking of writing a memoir one day, and perhaps some other non-fiction works on the MH system and/or eating “disorders.” I’ve always wanted to write at least one novel, too, ever since I was a kid. So I definitely have some ambitious dreams in that area! It’ll probably be decades before I’m able to accomplish all that, though…
In the meantime, I plan to continue submitting my writing to MIA occasionally. I have a substack as well, so you can follow me there if you want (it’s free!): https://substack.com/@madradrecoverybaddie
Again, thank you for taking the time to read this series, and I really appreciate your thoughtful comment! I hope it made a (positive) impact on you!
Report comment
John, thank you so much for these kind words! I really appreciate you taking the time to read my story & leave such a thoughtful comment.
Wow, it means a lot to me that you would pass along my work to your family & friends! I certainly hope I can help others feel less alone by giving voice to their experience; that is always one of my goals in sharing my writing & art. I hope to continue doing that for the rest of my life!
Report comment
Hi Birdsong, thank you for sharing that insight! I actually do agree somewhat, though in my opinion, intense spiritual experiences can certainly be transformative by prompting us towards that kind of change. But it is up to us to then carry out these newfound values in our daily lives through slow, gradual, grueling implementation. This is, of course, the less ‘glamorous’ part of healing/transformation.
Though I am quite familiar with that aspect of the process, that is not what I chose to write this piece about, nor the 3-part series of which it is a part, which is specifically meant to be about my experiences going on & off of medication. I did mention at the end of this piece (if you recall) that this was “only the beginning” and “the most difficult parts of my journey had yet to come.”
Perhaps one day I will write another piece about that — including the painstaking, day-by-day, bite-by-bite process of nursing myself back to health from near-starvation, the heartwrenching grief of peeling myself free from multiple abusive relationships one-by-one, the existential horror at unlearning almost everything I’d believed to be true about life, relationships, the world, society, myself, etc, and the humbling labor of rebuilding my entire life & identity brick-by-brick after ‘burning it all down.’ However, as I am still actively going through this process, it may be a long time before I am 1) ‘finished’ with it, whatever that means, and 2) ready to write about it for a public audience.
Though I never claimed to be a ‘perfect,’ spiritually enlightened being (nor will I ever be), and I am very fallibly human & still learning every day, I do think I’ve acquired quite a bit of wisdom through this process so far, and I look forward to sharing it one day. In the meantime, I would invite you to share your own personal story on MIA, as you seem so passionate about this subject matter! I would love to hear how you carry out those values you mentioned in your own life! Here is the link to their submissions page: https://www.madinamerica.com/submitting-personal-stories/
In summary, though I disagree with the notion that the intensity of a spiritual experience means nothing, I do agree that the (transformative) value of my experience wasn’t inherent, but what I chose to make of it. Which makes it a testament to my character, not to the experience itself.
Report comment
“Contrast”…? “Tone of my reply”…? I’m totally lost. Did I offend you in some way? I thought the tone of my replies has been respectful & honest. I still don’t understand what it has to do with the title of my piece. Besides, I think the content of my work matters more than the title I have chosen for it.
I won’t be responding to any further replies on this thread (for real this time). I don’t think the conversation is going anywhere productive at this point. To reiterate: I respect your beliefs & appreciate your perspective. I hope you found some value in reading my story.
Report comment
Tamar, first of all, thank you for your kind words!
So actually, I already wrote about (some of) my therapy experiences in my first article on MIA, which was published last year. Specifically, it is about my experience with eating disorder therapy.
You can find that here: https://www.madinamerica.com/2025/03/sick-enough-paradox-eating-disorder-treatment/
I have not written about my therapy experiences pre-psychiatrization, or the other therapies I received while psychiatrized. I do not wish to elaborate at this time.
In the pieces I’ve written, I’ve shared what I felt comfortable with, and what I felt was relevant to that part of my story. None of them are comprehensive accounts of my experiences with the mental health system.
It is very emotionally difficult to write pieces like this, digging up some of my most painful traumas for all the world to see, while also trying to craft a coherent, compelling narrative. I hope you can understand & respect that.
If I do write & publish another personal story about my therapy experiences in the future, it will be on my own accord. It will not be a part 4 of this series. I intentionally wrote this as a 3-part series.
I do not work for MIA or represent them in any way, so I can’t speak to your last comment. But like I said above, I have written about my experiences/criticisms of therapy on here before.
You can also find my other 2 articles below:
https://www.madinamerica.com/2025/08/narrative-reclamation/
https://www.madinamerica.com/2025/10/eating-disorders-where-madness-meets-medicalization/
Report comment
Thank you for your kind words, Lynne!!
Report comment
Birdsong, I do not understand what is “curious” about it at all. Having different spiritual beliefs than you does not negate the spirituality of my experience, nor does it contradict my title. My experiences, my beliefs, my narrative, and what I chose to title it, are not open to debate. I respect your beliefs, and I would appreciate it if you could respect mine. Let’s leave it at that.
Report comment
Birdsong, I am glad you found a worldview that resonates with you, regardless of whether you choose to label it as a “religion” or not. I’m not trying to split hairs over semantics, and I hope it didn’t come across that way. I think this conversation may be getting a little off-topic anyways, so I’m gonna end it here, but I’m genuinely happy for you for finding what works for you, and I respect the differences between our beliefs.
Report comment
Buddhism is widely recognized as a religion, even if you don’t personally see it that way. I’m glad you found Buddhism helpful for you. I did not necessarily find it helpful for me, but I appreciate & respect your perspective!
Report comment
Funny you mention it, I actually did take an Intro to Buddhism class in college as an elective. Unfortunately, it did not resonate with the headspace I was in at the time, and even caused further distress. I think this may be in part due to some of the therapy & self-help I’d experienced co-opted Buddhist teachings to fit a Western, medicalized framework. So I’m a bit traumatized by it! But I always try to keep an open mind about different ways of seeing the world (including religion), so I’m open to revisiting it in the future! And there are definitely aspects of it that I remember learning about that I do resonate with & appreciate.
Report comment
Thank you for your kind & thoughtful comment, Rosalee. And I am really glad that you resonated with my story & found value in it (though I’m obviously not glad that you went through something similar with psychiatry!). That’s part of why I decided to write this — to connect with others with similar experiences — so it means a lot to read comments like this.
Report comment
Aw, thank you, Steve!! I really appreciate it. This community means so much to me!
Report comment
Thank you, Dan! Me too!
Report comment
Thank you, Ruby, I really appreciate this comment. My purpose in writing this was not only to express these experiences for myself, but to reach others as well, so I’m glad I was able to do that for you.
Report comment
Thank you, Birdsong. Me too, honestly. Like I’d said in part 2, I’d lost all spiritual belief until this point, but going through this experience catalyzed a re-invention of myself & everything I believe in, including the divine.
Report comment
I’m curious what you mean by “negative emotion.” Why doesn’t this apply to “positive emotions” as well? Are people also “irrational” (whatever that means) in positive emotional states? Why or why not? Or maybe people are only “rational” when they are in a completely “neutral” mental state– neither positive nor negative?
Is is it really preferable that one is “brought up” out of the “negative emotion band” permanently? I certainly don’t think so.
And is the “biggest problem” truly when it motivates “criminal” behavior? Is lawful behavior always the same as moral behavior? (I don’t think so.) And are negative emotions always necessarily what motivates such behavior?
I know that’s a lot of questions, but your comment really got me thinking & raised some very interesting points.
Report comment
Thank you, Steve; I appreciate your compassion!
That’s a really good question. While I do wish I had been warned, I also don’t know if it would’ve made the experience itself much easier to bear. I mean, the pain of withdrawal itself couldn’t be prevented, though at least I wouldn’t’ve blamed myself for it so much, and that self-blame alone was the source of much of my suffering.
It’s hard to imagine my own experience having gone any differently, especially my journey in questioning & challenging psychiatry for myself. That couldn’t’ve happened if someone had warned me in advance. You’ll see what I mean in Part 3 (which is up now, by the way!).
Report comment
Thank you, Birdsong. It’s a kind of pain that’s difficult to describe.
Part 3 just went up this morning, by the way.
Report comment
Thank you so much, Ruby, I really appreciate it. It’s so difficult to even put what withdrawal is like into words — it seems to transcend the confines of language in many ways — but I’m glad I was able to do so in a way that resonated with your experience.
Part 3 just went up this morning if you want to read the rest!
Report comment
Hi, thank you for leaving this comment! I’m so sorry you had that experience. That’s ridiculous that the doctor tried to convince you that “psychosomatics” were separate from “psychiatry.” Sounds like he definitely didn’t know what he was talking about! I’m really glad you asserted yourself & didn’t fall for it though.
By the way, Parts 2 & 3 are up, if you want to continue reading! I hope you find value in those as well.
Report comment
Thank you so much for reading & leaving this kind & thoughtful reply, Rosalee. “Damned if you do damned if you don’t” definitely describes how I used to feel all the time. I hope you find value in Parts 2 & 3 as well.
Report comment
Thank you, Dan, I really appreciate this comment! Parts 2 & 3 are up now, if you wanna check them out!
Report comment
Thank you, I really appreciate hearing this kind of feedback. By telling my own story, I also hope to give voice to the stories of so many others.
Report comment
Hey Ann, for some reason my reply to you showed up at the bottom of the queue as an independent comment, instead of as a reply under your comment. Just wanted to let you know!
Report comment
Thank you so much for your kind & thoughtful comment, Ann. I’m really sorry you went through all that as well, and glad you seem to have found a way out.
Report comment
Thank you so much, Birdsong! I really appreciate your kind words & will try to take them to heart. It’s been a rough journey, and still isn’t over yet.
By the way, like I told Someone Else above, parts 2 & 3 should hopefully be going up sometime later this week, if you’re interested in hearing the rest.
Report comment
Thank you for your kind comment. I, too, resonate with song lyrics, and so I really appreciate you sharing those. Do you know the name of the song? I’d love to look it up.
By the way, there will be a part 2 & part 3 to this story, probably coming out sometime this week, so stay tuned for that!
Report comment
Thank you for your kind words, Steve! I always enjoy reading your insightful comments. I would also be interested to hear others’ experiences with this pattern, as it seems to be a common one (though not talked about nearly enough).
Report comment
Hi Gretchen,
Thank you for reading & thank you for your kind words!
Normally, I prefer to create my own artwork, but I didn’t have time on this one. So I told MIA my idea, and I believe they executed it using an AI program they typically use.
-Jasmine
Report comment
@Richard: And THIS formerly severely suicidal person found getting the hell away from psychiatry to be life-saving! Maybe THAT should be the standard treatment, eh?
But seriously, I have some food for thought for you. Barring eating “disorders” or substance use “disorders” (which are the only “mental illnesses” with direct medical consequences), name one “mental illness” that you can actually DIRECTLY die from. Technically the mortality rate of all “mental illnesses” should be zero, right? Because it’s not the “illness” itself that kills a person, it’s suicide (or other causes). But we don’t count suicides as part of the mortality rate for any other illness, do we? And if psychiatry is just like any other branch of medicine, then why do you think this is the case? For example, if a person labeled with depression kills themselves, we say the depression is what killed them & count that as part of depression’s mortality rate. But if a person with cancer kills themselves, we don’t say they died of cancer. We say they died by suicide. It’s not considered part of cancer’s mortality rate; that would be absurd. In fact, people might even say they died because they must’ve been “depressed” or had some other “mental illness” that was “undiagnosed” while they were alive. So why the double standard?
If “mental illnesses” were real, caused by biochemical malfunctions in the brain — what some consider to be the most important organ in the human body — you’d think there’d be a way to die of them DIRECTLY if left “untreated.” Why do you think there isn’t?
Report comment
There’s that False Equivalence logical fallacy again! Just because you can apply a certain argument to war, doesn’t mean you can apply the same argument to anything else labeled “barbaric.”
Let’s replace war with a different barbaric act. How about child abuse? Rape? Slavery? Lobotomy? Are those ever “just” or “necessary”? I would hope the only way you would consider answering that is with a resounding “OF COURSE NOT!” So just because you could argue that not all things considered “barbaric” are always bad, doesn’t mean that all things considered “barbaric” are NEVER bad. Would you say, “well war is considered ‘barbaric,’ but it is sometimes just or necessary, so therefore child abuse/rape/slavery/lobotomy is sometimes just & necessary, too”?? So then why would you apply that logic to ECT or other forms of “treatment”?
Report comment
All I’m hearing is “both sides, both sides!” There’s that Middle Ground Fallacy rearing its ugly head again!
Some issues don’t have two valid sides. Not everything is better in moderation.
Report comment
Okay, Richard, I was mostly with you in the beginning, right up until you said this: “Giving ECT to a floridly psychotic patient who has not benefited from meds is ethically defensible ( leaving aside the consent issue for the moment) if the primary intent is to improve the psychosis.”
Let’s break this down.
First of all, define “benefitted” and “improve.” According to whom? According to the patient? Because they’re the only one who should be deciding what “better” means to them. They’re the only one whose opinion matters in their own treatment. It doesn’t matter if you think they’re “crazy” or “incapable” or what. That’s just your editorial bias. Believe it or not, not everyone who hears voices or sees things others can’t wants to get rid of that. Some individuals find meaning or significance in these experiences. Others simply learn to live with it. These experiences are not INHERENTLY negative or destructive to all who have them.
Second of all, what do you mean “leaving the consent issue aside for the moment”? How can one EVER leave that aside?? I have no more words for that at the moment.
Moving on, you say, “The MIA report uses quotes in its report, which suggests a possible editorial bias rather than a more journalistic stance. I don’t think it’s out of line to use a term like treatment-resistant schizophrenia for someone who isn’t benefiting from reasonable and standard meds. If you don’t think schizophrenia exists, or that meds are appropriate ( if not coerced), then the quotes make sense, but you’re still putting your finger on the scale.” Interesting. So you don’t see that believing in “treatment-resistant schizophrenia” or “schizophrenia” or “meds” & using those terms without quotation marks is also a bias? You see that as inherently neutral, and anything that deviates from that default is “bias”? You don’t realize that the very concept of “schizophrenia” or “mental illness” or “treatment resistance” is NOT neutral, but a collection of politically weighty social constructs devised to uphold racism, misogyny, homophobia, ableism, and colonialism, both historically and present-day? That purporting these cultural ideas as objective facts & exporting them around the world is ITSELF a form of modern-day colonialism, eugenics, and cultural erasure?? Interesting.
Now onto what you said about ECT. Memory loss is not a rare side effect, it’s not only short-term, and it’s not the only side effect. In fact, even “side effect” is a misleading term. For any kind of psychiatric treatment — whether it’s drugs or a shock to the brain — there are no “side” effects, only effects. We’ve simply decided which of those effects are desirable or undesirable, but that doesn’t influence their probability of occurring. For example, according to some research, SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction is more common than the drug’s ability to relieve depression! But when it’s being prescribed as an “antidepressant,” we call sexual dysfunction a “side effect.” However, when it’s being prescribed “off-label” to treat premature ejaculation, we call elevated mood a potential “side effect.” Same drug, different framing. In fact, if you read Robert Whitaker’s “Anatomy of an Epidemic,” you’ll learn that most psychiatric drugs were originally designed to treat something else, before they observed elevated or calm mood as a “side effect” in a certain percentage of patients, and then they got the bright idea to repackage & market the very same drug as an “antidepressant” or “anti-anxiety medication.” Anyways, I digress. Basically, the same thing applies to ECT. Both memory loss & a reduction in “symptoms” are neither “side effects” nor “main effects,” they are simply potential effects. Lastly, please type “ECT” into the search bar of this site & read literally any article that comes up. I think that’ll change your view of it pretty quickly, if you’re open-minded & willing to have your view changed. I’ll link a few down below for your convenience:
https://www.madinamerica.com/2025/11/electroconvulsive-therapy-ect-its-not-just-the-memory-loss/
https://www.madinamerica.com/2025/08/ect-new-studies-detail-harms-lack-of-efficacy-lack-of-informed-consent/
https://www.madinamerica.com/2025/07/ect-proponents-deny-harms-as-the-tide-begins-to-shift/
https://www.madinamerica.com/2025/09/i-cant-remember-a-single-day-new-survey-shows-disastrous-memory-effects-of-ect/
Report comment
@Richard: Huh, that’s interesting. Maybe they weren’t sure what they were going to change it to yet. Well, now ya know what the new guidelines are, at least.
Anyways, I hope you enjoy reading the “Fuck Nuance” paper!
Report comment
Thank you for your reply. You’re right in that i was probably jumping to some conclusions in my critiques made above. I recognize that this is a relatively short piece focusing on one particular issue, and is therefore limited in scope, nor is it representative of your overall views. However, where are you getting the idea that you are limited to only 1200 words? I’ve seen you mention this at least twice now. As someone who’s written for MIA before, I can assure you that there is no submission type (that I’m aware of) that has an upper limit of 1200 words. In fact, even under the new guidelines, the submission type with the lowest MINIMUM requirement still has a lower limit of 1250 words. (If my memory is correct, the old guidelines were 1500-3500 words for all blogs/essays.) For blogs, you can write up to 2500 words, and for essays, up to 5000. Hopefully that helps so that in your next piece you won’t feel so rushed.
Here’s the up-to-date submission guidelines if you want to read the rest: https://www.madinamerica.com/submitting-a-blog/
Report comment
@Richard, I second what Steve says, and also wanted to add onto it. You’re approaching each “condition” as though it is the same problem & would therefore require the same solution, correct? Well, there are no “conditions” in psychiatry, only “syndromes.” By definition, every mental “disorder” in the DSM is a cluster of “symptoms,” not an explanation of their underlying “pathology.” That’s part of what makes “mental health” so fundamentally different from physical health. Surely, as a psychiatrist, you know this, right?
Okay, so Person A and Person B may both have the same “Condition X” — let’s say it’s depression. But they very well may have nothing in common beyond that. If the reason underlying Person A’s depression is a toxic workplace, and the reason underlying Person B’s depression is childhood trauma, do you really believe they both need the same treatment? Well, according to what you said above, they do, simply because they share a diagnosis! Let me go even more specific: Let’s say a new study comes out that says 70% of depression patients experienced improvement after quitting their current job, compared to 45% of those in the control group. (I’m keeping the numbers consistent for simplicity’s sake.) Well, that might make it the hottest new “evidence-based” treatment for depression! So as a psychiatrist with two patients presenting with depression, you would recommend both patients that treatment, since they share the same “condition,” right? But regardless of what the “evidence” shows, common sense tells us that that treatment is only going to work for one of those patients — Person A — because it directly addresses the cause of their depression, whereas it has nothing to do with the reasons for Person B’s depression! On the other hand, what if the “evidence-based treatment” in question is some form of trauma therapy or psychodynamic therapy? Well, in that case, it’s probably going to help Person B more than Person A, because it does nothing to help Person A’s ongoing workplace situation, which is the source of their distress.
I guess the only way one could honestly look at mental health & physical health in a comparative way is by recognizing that “mental health disorders” are SYMPTOMS, not diseases themselves. So one physical health ailment that might be comparable is a fever. A fever is not a “condition” in & of itself, it is a symptom that can have many underlying causes. It may actually inform very little about treatment. If you have two patients who both present with a fever, would you give them both antibiotics? What if one of them has a fever due to the flu, and the other has strep? Well, since strep is a bacterial infection, and the flu is a virus, antibiotics would only be effective in one of them, even though they may both have a fever & other overlapping symptoms.
Another physical symptom that could have many potential causes: abdominal pain. But what if we treated abdominal pain as a disorder itself? And what if we found that “Abdominal Pain Disorder” improves in X% of patients after removing their appendix? Are we gonna just go around giving everybody who has abdominal pain an appendectomy now? Well, it’s the “evidence-based treatment” after all! But obviously it’s only helping X% of patients because those were the percentage of patients whose abdominal pain was caused by appendicitis in the first place! What about the others? What about someone whose abdominal pain is caused by pregnancy? Menstrual cramps? Celiac disease? Or maybe they just had really bad gas? Well what if we found the most effective treatment for “Abdominal Pain Disorder” to be Gas-X? Should we just give all patients a prescription of Gas-X and send them on their way? I’m probably beating a dead horse at this point… you get the idea…
In summary, anything “mental health”-related is a SYMPTOM, not a “condition,” and symptoms, whether mental or physical, are signals that something is “off” in a person’s life or body. Treat people as individuals, not “disorders.”
Report comment
Thanks for your reply. I hope you enjoy reading the paper. I thought it was relevant because you mentioned the need for “nuance” and “shades of gray” (especially in your analysis of critical psychiatry).
If your essay were only about groupthink, and how it can become a problem in any or all groups if left unchecked, then I would totally be on the same page as you. However, you appear to be saying & implying a lot more than just that.
I’ll elaborate a bit on those 3 fallacies and where I found them in your essay.
1. Middle ground fallacy — “Both mainstream psychiatry and critical psychiatry are missing possible chances to find some common ground.” … “Both are partially right. Both should correct each other’s excesses without invalidating everything the other believes.”
Though you don’t use the word “middle ground” specifically, you are alluding to it with words like “common ground” and “correct each other’s excesses.” The underlying premise of the middle ground fallacy is the notion that the truth/ best possible solution must always lie in the middle of two extremes or opposing positions, ignoring the possibility that one or both sides may be entirely correct or entirely incorrect.
2. Straw man fallacy — “[Groupthink in critical psychiatry] can lead to absolute judgments about mainstream psychiatry, such as ‘medication is always bad,’ ‘no diagnosis has any validity,’ or ‘all psychiatrists are manipulated by drug companies.'”
It’s easy to dismiss an argument if you put it in such black-and-white terms: “always,” “never,” “all,” etc. I rarely, if ever, hear critics of psychiatry making such statements seriously. Most of us acknowledge that SOME people may feel helped by medication, not ALL psychiatrists are evil, etc. However, I would have to disagree with your portrayal of “no diagnosis has any validity” as a false statement. If we’re talking about scientific validity, that is simply true. If we’re talking about some other type of validity, then I don’t even know what you mean by that.
3. False equivalence — “Similar to how mainstream psychiatry often views critical psychiatry as having little merit and can’t or doesn’t ‘understand the full picture,’ it’s also true that some within the critical psychiatry world see mainstream psychiatry as without merit, harmful, evil, greedy, and acting with no scientific or other basis for what it does.” … “Although there’s no way to measure which group’s groupthink is more problematic, fairness calls for critical psychiatry to look inward if we’re going to demand that of mainstream psychiatry.” … “How powerful these forces are is open to debate, but to say they’re nonexistent would be akin to saying they don’t occur in mainstream psychiatry.”
Comparing mainstream psychiatry’s pitfalls to critical psychiatry’s pitfalls is like comparing apples to oranges. First of all, without acknowledging the institutional power that mainstream psychiatry holds over critical psychiatry, you’re inherently tipping the scales in mainstream psychiatry’s favor, portraying both sides as “equal” when that is not the case at all. It’s a bit absurd to claim that “there’s no way to measure which group’s groupthink is more problematic,” and that “how powerful these forces are is open to debate” when one side CLEARLY has more social & economic leverage than the other, and thus, more widespread harms.
Report comment
The first things this piece brought to mind for me were these three logical fallacies:
1. The middle ground fallacy
2. Attacking a straw man fallacy
3. False equivalency
Also this sociology paper titled “Fuck Nuance” (Healy, K., 2017)– yes that’s literally its name– and a video essay that references it: https://youtu.be/f9CMRMg0zjY?si=Piw3fx48TTvwP5Kg
I highly recommend reading and/or watching those if you’re bored and have 45+ minutes to spare.
Anyways, I have a lot more thoughts on this piece… not sure if it’s worth my time to share them all here though. I might have more to say later, might not, we’ll see.
Report comment
How is that any better than using antipsychotics, like the article was talking about?
I especially take issue with the notion that the purpose of these medications isn’t for the benefit or “peace of mind” of the patient, but the staff. The “peace” it brings the patient is only by putting them at lower risk of maltreatment by inadequately trained staff who do not know how to understand or respond to behavioral issues in someone with dementia.
This sort of thing isn’t exclusive to elderly care homes, it also happens in the foster system, psych wards, the education system, and in dysfunctional families. It’s not about helping the person in distress or “acting out,” it’s about making them more convenient & palatable for those around them.
If someone’s kindness towards me is contingent on them drugging me into sedated oblivion so that I’m nice & “manageable” for them, then we have much deeper problems in our society.
Report comment
@Steve – Good point about the antidepressant studies! I didn’t even think of that!
Report comment
I know this is an old comment and the likelihood that this will be seen is low, but I just wanted to chime in here & say that I really disagree with this framing & can provide several counterexamples which could not be explained by it.
First of all, I’ve heard this before — that antidepressants “don’t cause suicide” and the only reason why they may “appear” that they do is through the same mechanism of action by which they make someone “anti-depressed”: they simply “increase motivation.” This is, in my humble opinion, boloney. From my personal lived experience, I felt less motivated than ever on antidepressants. I felt numb & dull & uncreative & had no desire or motivation to do anything. THIS was a contributing factor to my suicidality, because it was a miserable way to live!!
Second of all, if it were true that antidepressants don’t cause suicide, they just enable it by motivating pre-existing suicidal feelings into action, then how do you explain people who have no history of suicidal ideation whatsoever & then kill themselves after being on an antidepressant for a couple weeks? Especially when it’s prescribed off-label, because then you can’t say, “well it was just their underlying depression.”
Third & finally, what about suicides caused by the withdrawal effects? Many people don’t attempt suicide while on the drugs, but right after going off of them. This cannot be explained away by the drug’s “motivating” effect– the drug is no longer in their body. It’s clearly an effect of the withdrawals.
Report comment
As much as I love seeing alternatives to the drug-based approach, there is one caveat I want to add here based on my own lived experience. Hopefully this won’t come across as a re-enactment of the “bean soup” video, but I have a feeling I’m not the only one out there who feels this way, so I’m just gonna share my perspective.
As an eating disorder survivor, I cringe a bit every time I see a headline about exercise as a treatment for depression because of the things that I was told during my own struggle with these so-called mental “disorders.” When I would go in for my depression/anxiety checkups, my doctor or psychiatrist would often ask me if I was exercising, or encourage me to exercise. They didn’t consider the idea that exercise could be part of the problem in my case– and in the case of many eating disorder patients. I was already exercising 1-2 hours per day, nearly every day, on top of eating very little. This combination of undernutrition & overexertion was contributing to my mental distress, which they were busy trying to treat with drugs for a fictitious “chemical imbalance” I didn’t have. Yet I kept hearing “keep exercising” or “exercise more.” This was VERY HARMFUL!!! I don’t think I can emphasize enough how harmful it was.
So no, exercise is not “virtually risk-free” for everyone. I think it is very important to consider how much a person is ALREADY exercising, whether they are eating enough, and if they have a past or current eating disorder. This may sound like a very niche issue to some, but I think it’s important to discuss, because so many people with eating disorders end up with a dual-diagnosis of depression/anxiety, or vice versa. It’s not as rare as people think.
Report comment
Exactly. The right is very unlikely to associate itself with anything to be labeled as “social justice.” Reminds me of this article: https://www.madinamerica.com/2025/07/psychiatry-criticism-politics-when-the-enemy-of-your-enemy-is-not-your-friend/
The left, on the other hand, is deluded into believing that promoting “mental health treatment” IS social justice. It’s seen as the de facto “compassionate” stance. After all, who could be against “mental health,” right?
All of which reminds me of this article (coincidentally written by the same author): https://www.madinamerica.com/2026/01/psychiatrys-rightwing-and-progressive-bigotries-how-each-enables-the-megamachine/
Report comment
@Birdsong, I would say it sounds like we’re mostly on the same page then!
Report comment
I’m not saying it never happens. Some hurt people go on to hurt others. Some don’t. And many people who hurt others are not doing so because they were/are hurt themselves. I think it’s a myth that abuse (always) causes people to become abusive, or that (all) abusers were abused.
As Steve said, abusing others is always a choice.
Trust me, anyone who knows me would tell you that I’m not a person who assumes the worst of others. Quite the opposite, actually. (Sometimes to my own detriment.)
Report comment
Yeah, maybe “happy” isn’t quite the right word, but I think we’re on the same page here. 100% agree!!
Report comment
Exactly. This is why I can’t really get behind sayings like “hurt people hurt people” or “all abusers were once abused themselves” or “you know they’re only acting that way because they’re insecure/miserable with their own life.” Like, no actually, they’re not the secret underdog/victim here! They’re feeling pretty damn good about themselves & that’s why they feel entitled to treat other people like shit! They’re pretty happy & satisfied with the status quo. Though it may be a superficial kind of happiness because they’ve severed themselves from the part of their humanity that is capable of experiencing deep joy & love, and their “satisfaction” may come at the cost of never TRULY being satisfied with anything because nothing’s EVER enough for them– but still, that doesn’t make them the secret victim of it all somehow!!
Report comment
That’s fair. Well, I definitely hope you’re right! Maybe we can organize a movement & try to make anti-psychiatry go viral…
Report comment
Wow, this is one of the best articles I’ve read on here in a while. This really helps answer that question so many of us have: Why do most self-proclaimed “liberals”/”progressives”/”leftists” endorse psychiatry & misunderstand the psych abolition movement, when they so aptly recognize other human rights violations & stand against THOSE forms of oppression & support THOSE social justice movements? Why aren’t they able to see the parallels? It make me think of the prison abolition movement & how so many supporters believe in “increased access to mental healthcare” as an alternative to the prison industrial complex, totally oblivious to the realities of the mental health industrial complex.
My only concern is that the conclusion of this article makes it sound kind of hopeless. Like every megamachine or oppressive system will one day be replaced by another, so there’s no use in even fighting it. I don’t believe that. Mostly because I don’t WANT to believe that. I’m sure many would call me naive or idealistic. But I think we can do better. How will we know until we try?
Report comment
That’s kind of ironic. If anything it seems like psychiatry has taken advantage of the internet to spread its propaganda even faster. Have you seen what’s been going on over on TikTok & Instagram for the past few years? It’s not the anti-psychiatry movement that’s spreading like wildfire, that’s for sure…
Report comment
The reason why I call it professional gaslighting is because the entire premise of CBT is that your thoughts & feelings are out of alignment with reality & therefore need to be “corrected”. The literal definition of gaslighting is “causing someone to question or doubt their own perceptions, feelings, powers of reasoning, or sanity, often leading to dependency on the perpetrator over time.” It can include tactics such as psychological manipulation, denial, trivializing feelings, and blame-shifting.
So let’s break it down: How is CBT a form of gaslighting? Well, first of all, by labeling a client “mentally ill” in the first place, you are causing them to doubt their own sanity. The “perpetrator” in this case is the therapist, and by telling the client not to trust their own thoughts, they render the client dependent on them (the therapist) to tell them (the client) what reality is. As a professional, licensed by the state, they get to be the authority on what reality is & isn’t, while you, the “mentally ill” client are deemed an inherently unreliable narrator or reality. Huge power imbalances like these are practically a set-up for abuse.
You said CBT has been “…[proven] effective for conditions like depression, anxiety, PTSD…” I would like to challenge your conception of these as “disorders.” There is no such thing as a brain-based “illness” such as depression, anxiety, or any other so-called “disorder.” If someone is feeling anxious or depressed, it’s most likely directly caused by things objectively going on in their life. To imply that their “depression” or “anxiety” “disorders” are simply a result of their own “maladaptive” thinking is both absurd & cruel, denying the objective reality of their external circumstances.
Let me give some examples:
– a LGBT+ teenager who is “depressed” because they are being bullied at school
– a single mom who has “anxiety” because she’s working 3 jobs just to pay the bills, and never gets to spend time with her kids
– a woman surviving domestic violence who has been labeled with “bipolar”
Do you think these individuals are truly “mentally ill” & just need to change their thinking? Are their thoughts & feelings actually “maladaptive” or “unhealthy” or even “inaccurate”? Or are they a reflection of their current reality? Would it even be ethical to ask these individuals to change their thinking to better adapt to the abuse, rather than working to stop the abuse and/or help them escape? This applies to systemic issues as well– instead of working to end systemic oppression (e.g. homophobia, transphobia, class oppression, misogyny), we apply a “bootstraps mentality” of victim-blaming & hyper individualism, where individuals are blamed for their circumstances & told that their only obstacle is from within.
Report comment
I think there’s a fine line between challenging pathologizing language and splitting hairs over semantics. True, ‘addiction’ is a label. ‘Drug use’ is also a label. ‘Tall’ and ‘short’ are labels; so is ‘young’/’old,’ ‘asleep’/’awake,’ and ‘apple’/’orange.’ Because ALL words are labels. That does not diminish their usefulness, or the realness of the things they are meant to represent. You could call it ‘addiction’ or ‘drug use’ or ‘behavior’ or ‘purple people eater syndrome’ if you want; as long as you are referring to the same phenomenon, it doesn’t matter what words you use. ‘A rose by any other name’ and all that. And this thing we call ‘addiction’ or ‘drug use’ undeniably is a real phenomenon. It’s more than just a label, and it’s more than just a behavior or choice, because chemical dependency & psychosocial factors influence a person’s behaviors/choices in ways beyond their direct control.
Report comment
Hey Robert,
I was thinking of you & your story when youtube decided to suddenly show me this video! It’s only about a minute long, and I wanted to share it with you & others here because you might relate to this person’s experience with kinds of attitudes & beliefs people hold about “schizophrenia.”
https://youtube.com/shorts/o0HMBTB1Ksg?si=U3UCleHtGm4PfxoW
Thanks,
Jasmine
Report comment
Thanks, Steve, this is exactly what I was trying to communicate!
Report comment
Yes, absolutely. I think we have that in common!
Report comment
Thank you Joel! Your comment made me smile!
Report comment
Robert, I do not know if it’s true that having an eating disorder is not as dreadful as having schizophrenia. I haven’t had both experiences, and I don’t think it’s worth arguing who “has it the worst.” I will say that being LABELED with an eating disorder is probably not as dreadful as being LABELED with schizophrenia. I already acknowledged that schizophrenia is far more stigmatized — arguably the most stigmatized among all psychiatric labels — yet I refuse to pretend like eating disorders are not stigmatized at all. Or that they cannot be as traumatic or potentially life-ruining (and health-ruining).
I do not recall if anyone’s ever said it directly to my face, but I’ve definitely heard people say things like eating disorders aren’t real, or that people with EDs are just faking/making it up for attention, or just fundamentally misunderstand what EDs even are. People have said to my face that they don’t think MY eating disorder is real, that I don’t really have one, including doctors. I’ve also been praised by others for being “healthy” when I was literally starving myself to the point that my hair was falling out and my bones were showing.
Trust me, it’s pretty dreadful to be pondering your own mortality at 22 years old when suddenly realizing that you don’t actually want to die once you fear it might be too late. It’s pretty dreadful to be now 24 years old and still partially disabled by the damage your eating disorder has left on your body.
Again, I don’t want to compare experiences, but I also refuse to downplay mine. You seem very self-assured in asserting that eating disorders aren’t as bad despite admitting to know nothing about them. I personally can’t imagine being that confident in making assertions about something I know nothing about, let alone assertions that compare/downplay someone else’s experience. Perhaps you could read my personal story or other ED articles, like I’d suggested, for a better understanding.
Report comment
Christine, I’m so sorry you went through that, and I didn’t mean to raise any triggers for you. Like I said, I definitely agree that there are people who are falsely/unfairly labeled “manipulative,” and it sounds like you’ve been one of them. I have been too, and I can actually relate to aspects of your story. It sounds like your abuser was the real manipulative one there! Again, I’m so sorry you went through all that.
I hope you had a nice time at the conference! Sounds very cool!
Report comment
@Joanna, I can see where the misunderstanding might’ve come from in my earlier comment. What I meant was that I don’t believe eating disorders are “mental illnesses,” like so-called “schizophrenia,” and I don’t think they are caused by brain disorders. Not that I don’t think eating disorders are real. The set of experiences and behaviors that we label as “eating disorders” in our society are certainly real.
Btw, I was antipsychotics (or “neuroleptics” as you call them) as well, even though I didn’t have psychosis or a schizophrenia diagnosis. They were prescribed to me “off-label.” So I am quite personally familiar with the harms.
I also agree with what you said above regarding everyone’s right to interpret and/or label their own experiences as they wish. And I disagreed with other commenters who were criticizing Robert as well.
Report comment
@Joanna: By the way, I realized that I didn’t respond to the part of your comment about psychosis vs schizophrenia. I want to clarify that I’m not denying the existence of the experience of what is called “psychosis.” That is very real and I know many people experience it. I simply don’t agree that it is an “illness” or even a “disorder.” I also don’t believe in dividing mental states into a “normal” vs “abnormal” binary; I simply see it as all part of the continuum of human experiences (including those brought on by trauma). Of course, you’re entitled to frame your own experiences however you want.
Report comment
Exactly! Not to mention that diet culture promotes a super fucked up idea of what “healthy eating” is, so many eating disorder behaviors are normalized and seen as “healthy.” Ya wanna know how many times I was praised or even envied for being “healthy” during my anorexia? More times than I can count!
Report comment
Robert, I will not deny that schizophrenia is more stigmatized than eating disorders. In fact, I think schizophrenia is arguably the most stigmatized of any psychiatric label. But I think a lot of your other assertions about eating disorders are false, and quite frankly, rather offensive.
You say that “an eating disorder is not so frightening.” Did you know that eating disorders have the second highest mortality rate (just behind opiate addiction) out of all psychiatric diagnoses? Did you know that every 52 minutes 1 person dies as a direct consequence of an eating disorder? As someone who nearly starved myself to death just over 2 years ago, I can assure you that eating disorders can be absolutely terrifying.
As someone with lived experience with an eating disorder, the solution is NOT that simple, though it may SEEM simple to someone who has never had an ED & doesn’t know much about them. Eating disorders can stem from complex trauma, fatphobia/diet culture, and a myriad of other factors. They are often a way of coping with immense emotional distress — like substance use or self-harm — and therefore it’s not that “simple” to “just stop.” It’s not about “learning to eat a healthy diet” either — in fact, many eating disorders actually stem from an obsession with eating “healthy.” Furthermore, after starving myself for years, there are physiological effects that do not go away overnight. One such effect is that your digestive system literally atrophies from underuse & malnutrition, making eating & digesting extremely physically painful. I’m still dealing with these effects over 2 years into recovery.
Even though (like I said) eating disorders are not as badly stigmatized as schizophrenia, they are still very VERY stigmatized. Depending on how outwardly visible your ED symptoms are (not everyone’s are), there is a high chance that you’d be judged on appearances alone at a job interview without even having to disclose the fact that you have an eating disorder. This could definitely impact someone’s ability to get a job. A lot of people hold harmful biases about people with eating disorders, including that we are “unstable,” “fragile,” “attention-seeking,” and less capable and less competent.
Additionally, eating disorders rarely happen in isolation, so they are often accompanied by trauma histories, self-harm, suicidality, substance use, and other psychiatric labels — all of which carry their own set of stigmas. Carceral psychiatric intervention is quite common in eating disorder treatment, similar to schizophrenia, and because of their medical complications, forced medical interventions may occur as well. All of this can result in spotty work histories from being in and out of hospitals or treatment centers.
I personally never went inpatient or residential (largely because my family could not realistically afford it), but I still experienced trauma as a result of the eating disorder treatment I had. I was coerced into taking multiple psychiatric drugs, including antipsychotics, and I had to fight to break free of psychiatry’s grasp & recover on my own.
Please be mindful next time before you make assumptions about other peoples’ psychiatric labels or experiences that you may be less familiar with. I don’t hold it against you, but I did find your comment really insensitive and minimizing of what I’ve been through. I was hoping a fellow psychiatric survivor would be more understanding.
If you want to learn more about eating disorders, I’d recommend you read my personal story, or one of the other articles I’ve written on here. Perhaps that will help you gain some perspective on these issues.
Report comment
Joanna, I find your reply rather offensive. I don’t need someone to tell me that “there are really people who starve themselves/make themselves throw up/etc.” It feels like you think I am ignorant and do not know what eating disorders are. I don’t just know about them; I have lived them.
They are not “clearly” disorders any more than any other so-called “disorder.” Are they behaviorally normative? No. Are they physically healthy? No. But does that mean they are brain diseases? Also no.
Similar to “schizophrenia,” many people do believe that eating disorders are lifelong & incurable, especially after one or more “failed” recovery attempts. It’s probably not as bad as the stereotypes about “schizophrenia,” yet there is still a lot of stigma and pessimistic assumptions about prognosis.
I’d recommend that maybe you read one of the articles I’ve written on this site about eating disorders to help you gain a better understanding. Then maybe you’d realize that they’re not “mental disorders,” and are indeed reactions to trauma/distress, much like other so-called “mental illnesses.”
Report comment
@Steve, Thanks for adding that, that’s part of what I was trying to convey. You put it into words.
Report comment
Christine, I didn’t ignore it, and I don’t disbelieve you or think it’s unimportant. I wrote a pretty long reply, and I couldn’t cover everything. I agree that an extreme increase in emotional “baggage,” as you call it, would intensify emotions & thoughts. But I thought we were talking about behaviors? Specifically abusive/narcissistic behaviors? Sure, our emotions/thoughts may affect or motivate our behaviors, but they are still a separate category.
I have my own lived experience too, as does nearly everyone here. I, too, have experienced extreme emotional distress and had to figure it out for myself, since the “professionals” and their “books” messed me up even more. I think we’re on the same page more than you realize. Basically what it comes down to is “everyone’s experience is different,” as I tried to convey before, and I think we are simply coming at the same idea from different perspectives.
Report comment
From what I’ve seen, the “emotional baggage” and “insecure bully” narratives are wayy more predominant in psychology, psychoanalysis, and society in general; my theory is presenting more of a challenge to those dominant ideas. I just mentioned the class/research to show that I’m not making this up out of nowhere — not to undermine my argument by aligning it with mainstream psychology.
The first thing I’ll say is that neither your experience nor my theory is going to singlehandedly account for every individual’s experience. I’m sure that what you’re saying is sometimes true (as it was for you & your friend). I’m also sure that what I’m saying is sometimes true. So we’re both right, in a way.
However, I also think there’s a difference between crisis/trauma response and actual abusiveness. I think our differences of opinion can be explained by the fact that you’re describing the former while I’m describing the latter. The behavior may look the same on the surface, but context, motivations, and overarching patterns may differ. For example:
– Traumatized response: Lashes out when feeling powerless & out of control.
– Abusive behavior: Lashes out to assert power & control over others.
– Traumatized response: Needs to prevent their autonomy from being taken away again.
– Abusive behavior: Needs to take away others’ autonomy.
– Traumatized response: Anger/superiority/etc is a method of self-defense.
– Abusive behavior: Anger/superiority/etc is a method of domination.
I also want to clarify that there are many ways for a behavior to be learned. Being taught that one is superior by being treated as superior is only one way. However, behavioral modeling is another way behavior can be learned– and this can be witnessed second-hand. For example, perhaps an abused child doesn’t grow up to feel superior or narcissistic because they were “taught” to; perhaps they learn from their environment or from society that those kinds of attitudes/behaviors will earn them power, admiration, safety, control, etc.
Forgive me for citing another psychological study, but it reminds me of the famous Bobo doll experiment. The children didn’t beat up on the Bobo dolls because they were abused or emotionally repressed, nor did they do it because they were taught to feel superior. They did it simply because they saw the adults do it first and learned to model their behavior.
Report comment
Joanna, my confusion/curiosity is not due to a lack of understanding. I understand that there is no convincing proof that “schizophrenia” is a mental “illness,” or even exists at all. But that is not unique to “schizophrenia”; it is true of all so-called “mental illnesses.” Including eating “disorders.” I was pointing out the double standard.
Report comment
I don’t know if this comment will ever be read/seen, since this is now a relatively old post, but it suddenly occurred to me that no one here on MIA has ever taken issue with my choice to self-identify as someone with an eating disorder the way that commenters here have taken issue with Robert’s choice to self-identify as someone with schizophrenia. I wonder why that is.
–Jasmine
Report comment
You’re literally just describing CBT. (Or as I like to call it, “professional gaslighting”…)
Report comment
@Birdsong: I hear you, but sometimes I get tired of always “looking within” & relying on self-care, self-compassion, self-understanding… I think it’s reasonable to want (and need) some of it to come from other people; we are social creatures after all. Though I agree, therapists are not the way to go!
This reminds me of this really relatable article from a few years ago: https://www.madinamerica.com/2021/05/we-do-not-have-everything-we-need/#
Report comment
@Steve: Gotcha, thanks for articulating that! Just to clarify, I still think it’s a really important skill/mindset to have and don’t want to discount that!
Report comment
All good points, Steve! Thanks for adding on!
Report comment
Hey Steve, I think one’s ability to “screen for” such qualities can be a valuable skill, as much as a luxury that many cannot afford. I first started therapy as a teenager, so my mother selected my therapist(s) for me. As a minor, I didn’t get a choice in the matter, and even once I was older & in college, my autonomy was limited as long as my parents held the purse strings. In addition, sometimes the very reasons that bring someone to therapy can be the reasons that they fall victim to the potential abuses of therapy. Pretty much every relationship & setting in my life up to that point had conditioned me to “perform” & worry about keeping the other person happy/satisfied. It was the only dynamic I’d ever known; how could I have known to look for something different?
I know your comment wasn’t making a personal judgment of me or anything, but I just wanted to use my own experiences as an example to add another dimension of nuance 🙂
I completely agree with the latter part of what you said! Anyone can provide a “therapeutic” conversation– as long as they know how to listen– no special qualifications required. But that key caveat: as long as they know how to listen… many unfortunately don’t.
Report comment
Hi Christine,
I think what you’re describing definitely can & does happen, and I think that the recent explosion of pop-therapy jargon around “narcissists” has contributed to this problematic usage.
However, I’ve also seen “narcissist” used in a vastly different context, where it is describing a pattern of abusive/exploitative behavior marked by self-centeredness. To me, this is not saying it is “innate” any more than calling someone an abuser implies innateness. Much like “abuser,” “narcissist” (in this context) is not a permanent label so much as a descriptor calling out harmful behavior. It’s not “scapegoating” if the blame is justified. I mean, I don’t think people should also stop calling abusive people “abusers” because it might hurt their feelings!
Whether a “narcissist” or “abuser” is created through mistreatment or social outcasting is a whole nother conversation. If society is “stigmatizing” them for abuses they have already committed… well then, I think you’d be confusing cause & effect in that case. But if you’re saying that being abused/mistreated causes people to become abusive/mistreat others– which is a popular idea– I’d have to disagree. I don’t think abusers/narcissists are created by being told they are less than others; I think they are created by being taught they are superior to others & thus entitled to impose their will on others. The “insecure bully” explanation makes for a nice story, but I remember learning in a college psychology class that it is actually a myth; research has shown that bullies demonstrate much higher levels of self-esteem, on average.
(Real life example: Donald Trump. Or literally any billionaire. They are arguably the biggest abusers/exploiters/narcissists on the planet. Do we really think that’s because they were the most mistreated/excluded in childhood? Or because they were raised to think they’re better than everyone else & entitled to impose their will at all costs?)
On the other hand, genuinely unjustified scapegoating & mislabeling of victims as “narcissists” is definitely a thing that happens. However, I think of it as being similar to how labels like “manipulative” often get falsely applied to folks in emotional distress/crisis. Though this is wrong & harmful in these cases, there is also a real such thing as manipulative behavior, and I don’t think the solution is to say that nobody is ever manipulative, or that we should all stop saying “manipulative” altogether.
–Jasmine
Report comment
Yeah, I felt like I was always “performing” in therapy. Like I was being graded & had to get an “A”. Maybe similar to what you’re describing as feeling like a circus animal.
Honesty, empathy, humanity, understanding– I completely agree. Those things can be hard to come by in our culture though.
Report comment
Hey Steve, that wasn’t my intention. Sorry if it was getting off-topic. I was just saying I agreed with Birdsong for the most part, yet I can also see what Olga was getting at by trying to make the distinction. I was in no way trying to compare one to the other as better/worse! They obviously both suck!
Report comment
Clarification: I understand the distinction between “trauma” and “abuse” in the context of Olga’s argument in the video, and I agree with the gist of what she’s saying in that regard, but I simply define those words differently for myself.
Report comment
Hi Birdsong,
I’m really curious to hear more about your thoughts on peer support work, if you are willing to share. I definitely agree when it comes to peer support work that happens within the system, and how it becomes co-opted by the system (as was mentioned in the video), but I also know of peer respites and other peer support organizations that are not connected to the psychiatric system (as Olga identified herself as belonging to) — except perhaps by channeling people *away* from it. What do you think of those? What would you suggest is a better way to build alternatives to psychiatry?
-Jasmine
P.S. I also disagree with the supposed distinctions between “trauma” and “abuse”. To the body/nervous system, they’re virtually the same. The distinction is a semantic one, not a somatic one.
Report comment
Birdsong,
I completely agree — I know from experience! Being able to do that was what made me “good at” therapy, yet prevented me from actually healing.
-Jasmine
Report comment
This article is fine, but nothing revolutionary for MIA. Perhaps the target audience is someone a bit newer here than I am.
The author presents people’s experiences within the mental health system in a binary way: Either you went the therapy route, or you went the medication route. The implication being that those who went the medication route were never offered therapy, and thus wound up feeling as though they had no control or responsibility for their recovery outcomes. However, the reality is that there is so much crossover, and many of us who were harmed by psychiatric drugging did try therapy first and/or were continuing to go to therapy while on meds.
As for the author’s perspective on therapy, I’m glad he had a good experience. But that is certainly not everyone’s experience. Therapy can do harm as well. It can also disempower, encourage emotional suppression, and make people feel “broken.”
Also, I understand that maybe it wasn’t the main focus of the essay, but Sal’s story sounds a little too good to be true. So he stopped psychiatric drugs cold turkey and didn’t experience any withdrawals? And all it took was one youtube video to convince him? And if his depression was “spurred by life events,” as the author aptly notes, it makes me wonder what they were, and if/how Sal was able to work through them. Surely it wasn’t instantaneous as the author portrays it.
Of course, different words mean different things to different people, but to me, the word “control” in the context of recovery — such as “He could control his own outlook,” and “Sal regained control” — has a connotation of suppression or domination through sheer willpower. In many ways, recovery is often about relinquishing control. Psychiatry (and therapy in my experience) is the one that teaches us our emotions are something to be “controlled.” Perhaps “agency” or “free will” would be a better word choice.
I hope I don’t sound overly critical; I agree with much of what this article has to say. We absolutely DO need a culture that embraces emotion instead of numbing it!
The author sounds very earnest, passionate & young. (Though I am close in age myself, I feel much older because I’ve been through a shitstorm.) I’m sure his ideas will develop & mature with experience. Best of luck to him!
Report comment
Freya,
Research & statistics reflect population averages, not individual experiences. I’m not necessarily talking about the poorest of the poor. Not everyone who is, say, middle class or above survives the mental health system. Not everyone who had “access” to the same “choices” or “resources” as a survivor did ends up surviving themselves. Does agency count for nothing, in your opinion?
You said earlier that “Having pride in our survival is understandable but ignores and excludes those who failed to survive.” First of all, that’s simply not true. At the last Mad Pride event I went to, a large part of the time was spent commemorating a member of the local Mad community who had just been shot and killed in his own home the week before. There was a memorial tent set up where people could mourn the loss of his & others’ lives. I think there is definitely a place for grief & remembrance of those who’ve been lost to psychiatry in the context of Mad Pride; they’re not mutually exclusive.
Second of all, the notion that we shouldn’t do anything that those with the least amount of “privilege” wouldn’t be able to participate in because it would be “excluding” them sounds a little absurd when the “un-privileged” in question are literal dead people. I mean, there’s not much that *doesn’t* exclude them.
You said that “Talking about survival as if it was a choice is pretty insensitive in my opinion.” Of course it’s more than “just a choice.” I don’t think any of us are in disagreement on that. But to me, it’s just as insensitive to discount a person’s survival and chalk it all up to mere “luck.” You also said, “As hard as your struggle has been, you were able to make the choice…” Ah, but there’s the key. Not everyone who is “able” to make that choice *does.* A lot of people give up. That is not to “victim-blame” anyone. But I think we survivors deserve to take some credit for our resilience, after all the world has taken from us. “those of us who have survived… no matter how hard we feel we have it, are just lucky…” That little word “just” reads as inherently discrediting & invalidating. Again, not everyone even with the same amount of “luck” or “privilege” would’ve survived similar circumstances.
I recently read the book “The Perils of ‘Privilege’: Why Injustice Can’t Be Solved by Accusing Others of Advantage” by Phoebe Maltz-Bovy, and I highly recommend it. Here’s a relevant quote: “The biggest glitch in the privilege framework is the it-could-be-worse component… this supposedly hypersensitive way of looking at the world manages to be incredibly dismissive of any plight that isn’t quite as bad as another.”
-Jasmine
Report comment
*Sorry, I meant 9 years, not 11 years in my comment above.
Btw, this is a great video on the topic if you have 30 minutes to spare: https://youtu.be/S2OjueAZGFo?si=SbNj2ZQlfbmdewfi
Report comment
Hi Birdsong,
I completely agree.
I’m not sure if you saw my apology under our last disagreement. Just wanted to let you know of that.
-Jasmine
Report comment
Tim,
I think your apt comparison to what happened to Vietnam vets, as well as what you said about not jumping to conclusions/assumptions about people, is very well-put.
-Jasmine
Report comment
Steve made some really great points above. I second all of that.
The idea that our current human-made environment is “built for” the majority of the population is demonstrably false. First of all, which one? There is no single “environment” across culture, time, and place. Human society is not one static monolith. And it evolves far faster than the human genome, so if ADHD is truly a genetic brain abnormality, then how do you explain that?
Furthermore, the assumption that any given human trait or experience always follows a normal distribution pattern is unfounded. First of all, I think we need to unpack that word & the idea of statistical averages. If you google the word “normal”, you will be able to see that the word usage over time ramps up heavily in the late 1800s/early 1900s and peaks around mid-20th century. This was largely due to the eugenics movement. In 1943 — around peak usage — eugenicist Robert Latou Dickinson designed statues named “Normman” and “Norma” based on the statistical averages of 15,000 men and women (respectively), all aged 21-25 years and racially white. According to the eugenics movement, it was believed that being closer to statistical averages (based on samples of exclusively young, white people) inherently meant being closer to ideal health.
The first edition of the DSM was published 11 years later, in 1952.
I think it’s worth noting that a large part of this obsession with “normal” originates from eugenicism, and therefore, bigotry. It’s also worth noting that industrial-capitalist society is not natural or “built for” 99% of humans. In fact, I would argue that society’s not built by/for the 80%, it’s built by/for the 1%. And I think we all know which 1% I’m talking about.
Report comment
To my fellow commenters:
I am firmly pro-Palestine. I also resonate deeply with Yishay’s writing and believe he has a right to share his story. These two truths are not mutually exclusive.
We must remember to be “soft on individuals, hard on institutions.” As Yishay said, we cannot always divide the world neatly into “villains” and “victims.” Maybe in a broad political sense, but not when it comes to individual human beings.
We also can’t always divide the world into a binary of “privileged” and “oppressed.” What happens when a so-called “privilege” is its own form of oppression? It is my understanding that military service in Israel is compulsory.
Furthermore, if you’re a non-indigenous American insisting that Yishay’s story shouldn’t get a “platform” on MIA because of who he is, then posting a comment on MIA yourself is hypocritical. Do you publicly “reflect on” your relationship to colonialism & genocide every time you post here?
Furthermore, how do you know he doesn’t feel remorse or reflect on these things offline? If he shared these reflections publicly, I’m sure he would then be accused of being “performative” or “centering his own feelings” instead.
Lastly, what would be accomplished by such a “reflection” or by de-platforming Yishay altogether? What’s the goal here? Would it end the genocide? Meaningfully advance Palestinian rights? My guess is no. He’s just one person after all.
-Jasmine
Report comment
Dear Yishay,
Your writing always brings me to tears, in a good way. Thank you for sharing it. I love how your style is poetic, yet minimalist. You never overexplain, you simply speak the truth.
This entire piece — but especially the line “or maybe I just learned how to hide the limp” and then what you say about the “cruel optimism” of the “promise” of healing — reminded me of a song I wrote a couple years ago. I would like to share it with you (headphones recommended): https://youtu.be/ZVeOum6c6zs?si=mMHAXN6KSiPWw7IE
Sincerely,
Jasmine
Report comment
Hi Birdsong,
Idk if this comment will get posted or not, because it has drifted too far off topic, but I just wanted to say: Honestly, you’re kinda right. I was projecting a bit & leaping to some conclusions based on my own perceptions & personal feelings. I am truly sorry. Poetry/art means a lot to me, and it’s hard not to take these conversations personally. I didn’t mean to cause any harm or hard feelings, and I hope you’ll accept my apology.
Sincerely,
Jasmine
Report comment
Freya,
I think you’re forgetting that the word “Mad” itself — as in “Mad in America,” “Mad Pride,” or “Mad Rights Movement” — is a reclaimed label that has historically been used to dehumanize & justify violence. We are not the first social justice movement to make use of such linguistic reclamation of derogatory terms or slurs. (E.g. the LGBTQ+ community reclaiming the former slur “queer.”)
That sounds similar to how Robert explained his relationship to the label of “schizophrenia.” In another comment, he said, “Insisting that I am a schizophrenic is my way of proving that psychiatrists are wrong in saying that schizophrenia is incurable.” Sounds like a radical act of narrative reclamation to me!
-Jasmine
Report comment
You’re welcome, Robert. I totally understand.
Report comment
Dead soul,
People still use the language of “illness” metaphorically in such contexts. They may not call it “marital detachment disorder,” per se, but people use words like “healthy”/”unhealthy”/”toxic” to describe relationships all the time. These are all different versions of health/sickness metaphors.
-Jasmine
Report comment
Dear Birdsong,
Not sure why you’re bringing this up. Is your intention to compare this piece to David Ingelby’s paper? Are you implying, therefore, that this piece is “overwrought,” “inaccessible,” and that only those who are highly “educated” and “skilled” can “interpret” it?
No one else in the comments complained that this article was elitist or inaccessible. No one else seemed to have a hard time understanding it. Maybe this article wasn’t for you. That doesn’t mean it’s bad or wrong, nor that those who did connect with it must be a certain “type” of person. Do you know the educational background of every person here in the comments, and how their educational background compares to your own? I had no trouble understanding it, and I’m a 24-year-old with only a bachelor’s degree. Roughly 40% of American adults share the same level of education as me or higher. Is that really such a “select few”?
Perhaps it doesn’t have to do with level of education so much, and really comes down to individual understanding and preference. It’s okay to just say, “I didn’t get it.” Or to simply say nothing and move on. But just because you didn’t understand and/or connect with something, doesn’t mean it is “inaccessible” to the “average person.”
You said “…feelings best communicated silently… through the ache that doesn’t need translation, the kind that’s TRULY ‘unspoken’.” That’s nice and all, but how exactly would you propose one communicates without words in a written article?
By the way, I commend your use of poetic language and metaphor in your very condemnation of poetic language and metaphor! “…addiction — a drug accessible only to a select few… cocaine for the intellect… perfume for the ego…”
Sincerely,
Jasmine
P.S. I’m quite curious as to what your exposure to poetry has been, and why you must have such a negative view of it. The way it is often taught in the education system is downright awful, and I believe that’s why most people become turned off to it. If you have 11 spare minutes, I’d highly recommend watching this video (with an open mind): https://youtu.be/FjwJQ0NVyYc?si=BG0gbcnrdJkwptSR
Report comment
Hi Birdsong,
I disagree. First of all, many of my favorite articles/blogs/personal stories on MIA are from several years ago, and are what I would consider very “well-spoken,” “poetic,” etc. To say that MIA “has become” this way is to imply that it didn’t used to be. That is simply not true.
What also confuses me is the notion that “academic” or “poetic” language is somehow antithetical to speaking “plainly” or “clearly.” Why must these be mutually exclusive? To the contrary, any *good* poetic (or academic) writing uses language/metaphor to clarify, not to obscure. I am curious as to where your ideas about poetry/academic writing come from.
I’ve noticed a trend of commenters wanting MIA to be a “safe space”/”sanctuary” for “real survivors” with “lived experience” to express themselves freely in their “authentic voice,” while simultaneously criticizing other survivors (usually the author) for using the language that feels right to them — be that poetic, academic, diagnostic, or otherwise. Hypocritically, this inadvertently undermines the welcoming, survivor-centered, censorship-free environment that they claim to advocate for. I thought our whole schtick was letting people self-define their own story without imposing our own opinions/beliefs/worldviews on them or insisting that they conform to our preferred way that they communicate (i.e. what psychiatry does).
Not a single positive comment here was praising this article for its “cleverness.” You were the first to bring that up. Instead, they found value in this piece through its humanness, relatability, and connection. Is that not the desired outcome of survivors sharing their voices with one another? What would you prefer instead?
Yes, the author is also a very good writer. Would you rather her be a poor writer? I do not think the piece would’ve been nearly as effective, or her effect on other (real, human, survivor) commenters/readers as profound. It’s true, not everyone possesses these gifts. Life’s unfair. But I think that’s all the more reason for those who have them to share them. One commenter literally said the “article really spoke to [them] in ways that are hard [for them] to put into words,” and another said “You’ve given voice to the quiet ache many of us carry.” The purpose of writing/art is not always to perform or “show off” or as an “ego trip,” but to communicate & connect with others (who need it) as well.
If you’re looking for articles that are written in what you call “plain” language, there are plenty of others you can find on here. I regret to inform you that that they will still likely be well-written. Of course Mad in America is going to “favor” those who are good writers; it’s a journalism outlet! If you want a place for indiscriminate venting, I suggest you visit Reddit (they actually have some thriving anti-psych & anti-therapy subs!).
Sincerely,
Jasmine
Report comment