• Top Posts

Big Rift, Little Rift, Crossable Channel

The mental health system has very little to do with mental health, and the mental health system has a whole lot to do with “mental illness” labeling. Mental health experts are not so much mental health experts as they are “mental illness” experts. They don’t treat “well” people, they treat people who are seen as “sick”, and if “wellness” is the aim, it isn’t the typical condition people “under their care” are thought to possess.

There are a number of problems with conventional mental health treatment that attributes immature and irresponsible behavior to biological defects. Belief in biology of this sort doesn’t even allow for personal growth. The folly of youth can’t give way to the wisdom of experience when that folly is a predetermined physical condition. Contemporary theory has replaced psychosomatic with somatic psychological.

By definition “mental illness” is psychosomatic. Brain disease proper is an illness, or damage to, a specific bodily organ, the brain. A blurring of the lines between neurology and psychiatry has obscured this basic distinction between these two disciplines of study to the detriment of all people in mental health care. The answer to the psychosomatic dilemma is psychological. There is no answer to the somatic psychological condition, psychology being an individual response to matters beyond one’s control.

What people don’t realize is that much of the cynicism regarding mental health treatment today is based entirely upon theoretical bias. Without responsibility there is little or no freedom. When choice is removed from an equation, the possible outcomes are severely limited. It should come as absolutely no surprise then that negative outcomes are often the self-fulfilling prophesies of negative expectations.

Responsibility comes of taking charge of one’s behavior. Where self-control is accounted lacking, taking charge is thought to be unattainable. It is this matter of control that is at the crux of our dilemma in mental health care today. The assumption is that “disease” vanquishes all “self-mastery”. The reality is that this ouster has not been sufficiently demonstrated to justify abandonment to belief in it. If the “disease” were characterized as a “lack of self-control”, perhaps its severity is all too often exaggerated into mythology.

Some people have a great deal of difficulty, and if you consider their circumstances, it should come as little surprise, getting over this “mountain made out of a mole hill”. The question is how does somebody manage to shrink this “mountain” back down to a more manageable dimension again so that a person could step over it in order that he or she may move on with his or her life. Psychiatry has been supremely ineffective, to date, at arriving at a method for making this step possible.

I submit that we need to look closer at the relationships this person has with people who inhabit his or her social sphere before we jump to any conclusions about his or her character. These relationships include business and therapy associations as well as family and friends. Between the 5 % of the population who have been given chronic psychiatric labels, and the 95 % of the population who are deemed, relatively speaking, “mentally healthy”, I think the gap is much narrower than it has been thought to be. It is so narrow, in fact, that I think a great deal more people might be able to move beyond it than has been hitherto suggested.