Sunday, December 8, 2019

Defining Anti-Psychiatry

Home Forums Organizing for Social Change Defining Anti-Psychiatry

Viewing 15 posts - 316 through 330 (of 450 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #75579
    Frank Blankenship
    Participant

    I would set the tolerance bar pretty high. The problem is that we have a system for abusing those people who couldn’t get under the low tolerance bar. Punishing them in this fashion would presumably get them to behave in a more tolerable manner. The abuse tolerance bar is so high, in other words, because the behavioral tolerance bar is so low. Increase tolerance, and tolerance of intolerance has to suffer.

    #75601
    Nomadic
    Participant

    Frank, having a hard time following you.

    Go after the worst abuses, like forced psychotherapy, medical Munchausen’s, behavioral therapy done on minors.

    But in rhetoric set the philosophical bar very low, psychotherapy is wrong, capitalism will be opposed at every level, and the middle-class family has to exposed as the child abusing institution which it is.

    Nomadic

    #75602
    oldhead
    Participant

    Families operate within the context of capitalist rule and sometimes reflect its values, they are not a “cause” in and of themselves. Also “middle-class” is a very hard to define — and in my view illusory — term.

    #75611
    Frank Blankenship
    Participant

    Psychiatry should cease and desist labeling and drugging children, especially to the extent that this is being done today.

    Forced psychiatry should be abolished.

    Harmful malpractices, even if they are standard malpractices, need to be exposed, and diminished, if not eliminated.

    I think, beyond that, one is going to have a great deal of difficulty banning consensual non-coercive psychiatry.

    #75621
    Frank Blankenship
    Participant

    However, and this is a major point, if we are starting from the premise that “mental illness” is a myth, a figure of speech, little more, then our premise would render psychiatry as a branch of medical science without basis, and, if true, an example of out and out fraud.

    I think basically psychiatry is vulnerable historically, etymologically, and in almost every way imaginable. This is especially true seeing that in terms of practice today it is mostly a matter of providing trauma, and then referring to the trauma provided as medicinal.

    Etymologically, for instance, the psychiatrist is a doctor of souls. Certainly, there have to be questions about anybody’s idea of science originating in divinity school. This confusion, in turn, leads to further confusion as to whether we are talking about minds or brains.

    It has been forecasting a slew of discoveries on the horizon for more than two hundred years, discoveries that are fain to put in any appearance, beyond the psychiatrists self-congratulations for giving his profession some kind of standing. In lieu of real evidence, the standing of a sand castle.

    #75641
    Nomadic
    Participant

    Oldhead wrote, “Families operate within the context of capitalist rule and sometimes reflect its values, they are not a “cause” in and of themselves. Also “middle-class” is a very hard to define — and in my view illusory — term. ”

    Families operate within the context of capitalist rule and always reflect its values. And yes, families are not a ’cause’ in and of themselves. D and G make much of this. As they say the socius comes first, never the family. So they state their exceptions to R. D. Laing, explaining that they do not find the origins of schizophrenia in the family, but in the socius.

    But allowing for this, we still need to go after individual parents and hold them accountable using what ever means are necessary, just as we do bank robbers and serial killers.

    As far as the middle-class, there is no other class in industrial democracies. It is just that some people conduct themselves in accordance with it’s interests and some do no. I would also argue that there are those ejected from the middle-class who comprise and underclass or an untouchable caste, though this interpretation is far from universally agreed upon.

    But the important thing to understand about the middle-class is that in the US there never has been any other class, and that everywhere, being middle-class is a mind set, a way of thinking, not a particular level of income or consumption.

    And what I would add to this widely accepted doctrine is that it preys on children in a manner not before seen in human history.

    Just so happens right now that I am reading:
    http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Theory-Family-Mark-Poster/dp/B004SI3U70/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1461010574&sr=8-2-fkmr0&keywords=critical+theory+on+the+family+mark+poster

    This 1978 work is widely disseminated. He contrasts the bourgeois form with other family forms, and it is most telling. His 1978 work is also an early read on D and G’s Anti-Oedipus.

    Poster is good. I have read some of his other stuff. At this point I would say, read anything he has written. He makes it very clear that the bourgeois form was forcefully imposed.

    And so I hope to learn more about this, and learn how to describe it along the lines of “Crime Against Kansas”, the attempt to impose slavery in Kansas, as described by Charles Sumner of Massachusetts and then further in the Republican Party’s 1856 First Presidential Platform for John C. Fremont.

    I believe that the day will come when people see that the middle-class family is as absurd as arranged marriages and Victorian parlor courtships, and far more abusive to children than child labor, and that no one will ever be allowed to hold a child in that kind of isolation again without criminal prosecution.

    Here, quoted in Mark Posters book:

    “There came a time when the middle class could no longer bear the pressure of the multitude or the contact of the lower class. It seceded: it withdrew from the vast polymorphous society to organize itself separately, in homes designed for privacy, in new districts kept free from all lower class contamination.”
    Philippe Aries

    I would also add that Aries is the one to show that the middle-class invented childhood, along with all forms of familial sentimentality.

    And I offer the below as an excellent further description.

    Nomadic

    John Merriman, Yale, middle classes
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEk1JAkyvj4&list=PL3A8E6CE294860A24&index=9

    #75642
    Nomadic
    Participant

    Corrected Video Link:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEk1JAkyvj4

    Nomadic

    #75643
    Nomadic
    Participant

    Frank wrote, “Psychiatry should cease and desist labeling and drugging children, especially to the extent that this is being done today. ”

    I go with a reduced version, “Psychiatry should cease and desist labeling and drugging.”

    Sami Timimi. No More Psychiatric Labels: Working Beyond Diagnosis 7th March 2014 Powys, Wales
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5caitdQA6HY

    Nomadic

    #75644
    Nomadic
    Participant

    Frank also wrote, “Forced psychiatry should be abolished.

    Harmful malpractices, even if they are standard malpractices, need to be exposed, and diminished, if not eliminated.

    I think, beyond that, one is going to have a great deal of difficulty banning consensual non-coercive psychiatry. ”

    Yes, forced psychiatry should be abolished, and direct action to obtain this result should begin at once.

    Harmful malpractices? Problem with this is that it legitimates non-malpractice. So I would never argue it that way, I would just argue it as abuse, exploitation, and fraud, and then respond accordingly.

    So as far as banning consensual non-coercive psychiatry, I would not attempt that, as it should be protected as free speech. I would just demand that there be no government complicity, as there is not supposed to be with religion.

    Nomadic

    #75646
    Nomadic
    Participant

    Frank also wrote, “However, and this is a major point, if we are starting from the premise that “mental illness” is a myth, a figure of speech, little more, then our premise would render psychiatry as a branch of medical science without basis, and, if true, an example of out and out fraud.

    I think basically psychiatry is vulnerable historically, etymologically, and in almost every way imaginable. This is especially true seeing that in terms of practice today it is mostly a matter of providing trauma, and then referring to the trauma provided as medicinal.

    Etymologically, for instance, the psychiatrist is a doctor of souls. Certainly, there have to be questions about anybody’s idea of science originating in divinity school. This confusion, in turn, leads to further confusion as to whether we are talking about minds or brains.

    It has been forecasting a slew of discoveries on the horizon for more than two hundred years, discoveries that are fain to put in any appearance, beyond the psychiatrists self-congratulations for giving his profession some kind of standing. In lieu of real evidence, the standing of a sand castle. ”

    Mental Illness is a myth, but it is more than a figure of speech. It is a syndrome of abuse and denial. It is fraud, but it is even more malicious than that.

    What we need instead is political consciousness raising and political action. Philosophical Counseling, given that there can be all sorts of philosophies being drawn upon, could be a way to actualize this. But I still say that it can’t be in the therapist’s office, it has to be out on the street, in the court rooms and legislative halls, and in direct actions. I am engaging in street level politics now daily.

    Nomadic

    #75692
    Frank Blankenship
    Participant

    So as far as banning consensual non-coercive psychiatry, I would not attempt that, as it should be protected as free speech. I would just demand that there be no government complicity, as there is not supposed to be with religion.

    I’m not taking this view really. My reverse was realizing that it was a wrong direction. I’m not arguing against ‘consensual non-coercive’ psychiatry. I am saying that people need to be adequately educated about the damage done in standard psychiatric practice. When they have been so informed, even ‘consensual non-coercive” treatment might become a rarity. Going from ‘non-coercive’ to ‘safe’–non-harmful–treatment right now is still very much a leap. A leap, many people might seriously scrutinize, seeing as lives are on the line, before taking, that is to say, the leap from undoubtedly safe non-treatment into questionable treatment practices.

    So as far as banning consensual non-coercive psychiatry, I would not attempt that, as it should be protected as free speech. I would just demand that there be no government complicity, as there is not supposed to be with religion.

    I wish, but “mental health”, so-to-speak, is the law. “Insanity” is a legal, not a medical, designation and term. Getting the government out of folks medicines cabinets is still pretty problematic all the way around. Thomas Szasz argued for a separation of powers as applied to government and medicine. A very good argument in fact, but a problem we are faced with, that flies in the face of such arguments, is the prohibitive cost of medical care. When people can’t afford it, there comes a point when government has to step in because those same people demand it. Could we separate medical procedures from cost, I don’t know, but anytime the government is there with a check there are going to be strings attached.

    What we need instead is political consciousness raising and political action. Philosophical Counseling, given that there can be all sorts of philosophies being drawn upon, could be a way to actualize this. But I still say that it can’t be in the therapist’s office, it has to be out on the street, in the court rooms and legislative halls, and in direct actions. I am engaging in street level politics now daily.

    The topic under discussion is defining anti-psychiatry. Out of this discussion of terms should come the makings of a philosophy of anti-psychiatry. The philosophy of psychiatry is found in countless research papers, treatises, text books, journal articles, blog posts, book reviews, etc., etc. Logic and philosophy have much to do with definition and semantics. Bio-psychiatry, social psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, community psychiatry, clinical psychiatry, post-structuralist psychoanalysis, etc., all have a base in philosophy. Ditto, anti-psychiatry. Philosophy, in the case of anti-psychiatry, helps provide a more solid basis for political action. Although the solid base has some importance, it is the political action itself that assumes a primary value. Psychiatry harms people in the name of healing them. Anti-psychiatry is out to expose, and to dismantle, this system of injury and deception that calls itself psychiatry, when it doesn’t call itself “mental health”, and even when it does. Psychiatry begins with the presumption of “sickness” in characterizing behaviors it would suppress, anti-psychiatry begins with a consciousness of the destruction that has been wreaked on account of this presumption. Psychiatric institutions traditionally have been prisons calling themselves hospitals, psychiatric inmate/prisoners traditionally have been euphemistically called patients, anti-psychiatry represents an antidote to this sort of all around obscurantist misrepresentation, deception, and the systemic physical and social injury that goes along with it.

    #75704
    Nomadic
    Participant

    Frank wrote, “Out of this discussion of terms should come the makings of a philosophy of anti-psychiatry.”

    This is what I was trying to speak to much earlier. By anti-psychiatry some people mean an alternative kind of psychiatry. I imagine it still means confessing on the couch and paying fees. But I am not interested in this. I am not interested in Primal Therapy.

    What I want is to act against all forms of psychotherapy, as well as against Capitalism and the Middle-Class Family. So when I say Anti-Pscychiatry, I mean acting against psychiatry, not making some sort of new and improved psychiatry.

    So then what I am proposing is political consciousness raising and political action, as opposed to drugs, punching pillows, and confessing on the couch.

    Nomadic
    http://freedomtoexpress.freeforums.org/index.php

    #75712
    oldhead
    Participant

    Out of this discussion of terms should come the makings of a philosophy of anti-psychiatry

    Makes sense to me.

    #75716
    Frank Blankenship
    Participant

    his is what I was trying to speak to much earlier. By anti-psychiatry some people mean an alternative kind of psychiatry. I imagine it still means confessing on the couch and paying fees. But I am not interested in this. I am not interested in Primal Therapy.

    No alternative psychiatry. We need people who aren’t selling “mental illness” (phony diagnostic disease labels), and treatment (talk, gadgets, and/or drugs). We need people who will let people live through their mad experiences, un-suppressed, and come out on the other side, intact, and not damaged by such treatment as is actually mistreatment. We need more people who will let people be and fewer reckless meddlers.

    What I want is to act against all forms of psychotherapy, as well as against Capitalism and the Middle-Class Family. So when I say Anti-Pscychiatry, I mean acting against psychiatry, not making some sort of new and improved psychiatry.

    I don’t know about acting against Capitalism and the Middle-Class Family, but I definitely concur with the rest of your statement, and I like to think of myself as an anti-capitalist, too. As for the Middle-Class, the rich seem to be doing them in, and as for the family, yeah, the human population can become something of pestilence, especially where the environment and other critters are concerned.

    So then what I am proposing is political consciousness raising and political action, as opposed to drugs, punching pillows, and confessing on the couch.

    Totally thumbs up!

    #75756
    Nomadic
    Participant

    Frank wrote:

    No alternative psychiatry. We need people who aren’t selling “mental illness” (phony diagnostic disease labels), and treatment (talk, gadgets, and/or drugs).

    YES!

    Frank also wrote:

    We need people who will let people live through their mad experiences, un-suppressed, and come out on the other side, intact, and not damaged by such treatment as is actually mistreatment. We need more people who will let people be and fewer reckless meddlers.

    This I do not agree with, as it feeds right back into the myth of psychological healing. It still puts forward the idea that the issues are in the client’s head.

    http://www.amazon.com/Against-Therapy-Emotional-Tyranny-Psychological-ebook/dp/B008KPZRDW/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1461192873&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=jeffrey+mason%2C+against+therapy

    Once they can convince you that it is all in your head, then you are impotent and well on your way to full blown schizophrenia.

    What the client needs is to restore their social and civil standing. And you can never do this alone. Making you think you should do it alone is another way they destroy you.

    No, the problem always was not having comrades. If you had comrades they could not have abused you. And the comrades of children and adult survivors. And when you have comrades, besides vanquishing abusers, you can get laws changed and set court room precedents, and you can put psychotherapists and autism behavioral clinics out of business. Comrades back each other up and legitimate each other. Comrades band together and render capitalism and its means of enforcement ineffective.

    Telling people to work through their problems is in trivialize and infantilize them.

    Nomadic

Viewing 15 posts - 316 through 330 (of 450 total)
  • The forum ‘Organizing for Social Change’ is closed to new topics and replies.