Hi there, In other sections of this site you will have read some logical arguments about 'mental health' and 'mental illness', either supported by available evidence, or for which there is available evidence and for which I have provided anecdotes & analogies. To win the hearts and minds of professionals, institutions and the community, we have to use every form of convincing argument and persuasion available, to overcome the generalisations and media prejudices. In this section I am more interested in presenting the emotional, political and ethical arguments, relying less on evidence and seeking to establish an alternative, 'constructive', perspective on the social psychology of 'mental health'. I will, non-the-less, seek to keep these arguments logical and cohesive. My intention is not to wholly invalidate the 'normal' cultural perspective(s), but to validate the variations in valid perspectives that can exist, in parallel to these. Lets get straight to it. There are two broad themes to what I have to say. Firstly, there are various, rather rigid, assertions about what mental health and mental ill-health, fundamentally are. The second is concerned with how societies and cultures understand and react to 'altered' mental states & alternative psychological and cultural perspectives. In this discussion I will try to avoid the use of terms that are normally used for 'mental illness' (as much as I can), as these have too many connotations and distorted meanings (including their original meanings). It is for this reason that there are some subject areas I have to cover, even in this more down to earth approach. These are the fundamental, genetic, social, psychological, emotional, spiritual, political and economic issues which allow us to more fully understand our, psycho-social selves. Again, these subjects will be dealt with here at emotional, ethical and political levels. How we see and understand these subject areas, and the limited perspectives we have from them, is restricted by political and economic choices that we and others have made, over generations. These established perspectives therefore tend to support the status quo, keeping things much as they are. This is the 'institutionalising' process, which can sometimes go too far in maintaining established conventions and can additionally generate prejudice and relative injustice. There is institutional change, but this is necessarily slow and reflective, gradually moving towards understanding alternative perspectives, hopefully without throwing away valuable insight already obtained. The move forward is with caution and prejudice. That is; there is a necessity for change to be gradual, so as to bring most people along with the changes, at a rate that they can appreciate and adapt to. If the restrictions on 'change' are influenced by prejudices then stagnation can set in and an inevitable reaction precipitated (revolution), because of resentments. Self interest (prejudice) interrupts this process of natural cultural growth. It can tend to stop change, where this may affect the interests of an established minority, or may otherwise promote retrogressive change, to regain ground lost by previous advances. Self interest can also promote change without adequate consideration and insight into the wider consequences of the changes. To some degree, this is an unavoidable consequence of change but we could do better in anticipating most of the important 'side effect' consequences of the changes we are introducing. We do not live in a vacuum. All these things affect us and 'push' most of us along particular lifestyle routes, or stimulate us to 'react' and follow an opposite route. Sometimes these restricted options are against our better judgment and often against our best interests. This is the influence that powerful minorities, and relatively ignorant masses can have. This is also how much mental illness appears to arise. Even serious mental illnesses are affected by established conventions, attitudes and limited cultural perspectives within our societies. There is evidence of the natural progress of change and adaptation, with the predicted reactions one may expect. The rise of Feminism was a long fought and long awaited call to change. The re-balancing of the power roles within relationships and institutions. Some of the resistance to this was justifiable caution, to allow people and institutions to adapt systems and processes. Some was 'natural' resistance, which exists to ensure that we take the best of the old and incorporate (transform) it with the new. Most resistance, however, is prejudice carried on the back of the healthy caution. The result has been a long delay in the re-balancing of power and roles in relationships between men and women (in our own and other cultures), which has generated reasonable resentment and some over-reaction, both by men and women. These 'delays' create an tension, where the natural process of change is intensified and sharpened. In the process it becomes less adaptive and more reactive to the resistance. Once the battle is won, the tension is suddenly released and there is a kind of 'elastic' vibration of actions and reactions, until a new equilibrium is reached. Old and new perspectives and knowledge then become incorporated, and eventually transformed, into healthy co-operative and equitable relationships. Over the same time period we can see the same kinds of action and reaction bringing about gradual change in relation to race and colour. The pace of change has again been too slow, because of prejudice and self interests. There were the same kind of action & reaction consequences, until a radical, perhaps even revolutionary, change took place. To some degree there was an overreaction on the part of some, on both sides. The adjustments and repercussions still go on and other cultures and races, that had been previously disadvantaged, are now reacting strongly to their relatively disempowered position. Social adjustments to religious beliefs and practices are currently under way. Some have waited a long time for justice and their reactions to this procrastination, restrictive practices, intolerance and interference, has been savage. The on-going actions and reactions are as unavoidable, as in the other cases I have reflected upon. This has also been true in respect of sexual orientation. There has been resistance and a predictable revolution, with the to be expected reactions and counter reactions. The vibrations continue, affecting both sides. We can also informatively look at the development of rights, entitlements to normal expectations of living for people with Learning Difficulties, Physical Disability and sensory disabilities, like Deafness and Blindness. I have been around long enough to have seen incredibly prejudicial practices by professional and institutions. These practices were sanctioned by institutions, the professions, religion and public media, as appropriate to the then assessed needs of these groups. The 'scientific' theory and methods, used to justify the practices of the time, were corrupt and self congratulatory, much like in the case of gender, race and religion. The attitudes and supposed justifications, were clearly prejudicial and unjust, supported by the distorted, 'quasi-theories' of the time as being necessary and the only available options. Cultures just accepted the expertise, as this suited those of influence. Many others had little real choice, but still had the same underlying ignorance and prejudice to anything different, which they were not fully able to understand, perceive, or experience. The otherwise, reasonably sound, purer forms of scientific theory, of evolution, genetics, sociology, psychology, anthropology and even economics, have been corrupted. These were melted down and re-cast to suite the underlying beliefs and attitudes of the time. Religious groups reacted in an equally destructive way to help keep the prejudices thriving. Religious doctrines are frequently corrupted to justify prevailing prejudice and bigotry, by many of those who take up the flag of particular cults and persuasions, eventually incorporating this into the prevailing thinking. This may sound a little unfair. It is frequently argued that the state of knowledge at the time was limited and such errors were to be expected. In fact, there has always been valid alternative perspectives to these existing beliefs. It has been the prevailing greed, self interest, relative ignorance, coupled with the inappropriate and incompetent use of power and privilege, which has kept things as they were. This is not just an emotional argument, it is a clearly supported representation of sound theory of human development which parallels our evolution. Those valid checks and balances which are incorporated into cultures and societies, to provide stability and a measure of consistency, are open to corruption. It is always in the interest of select groups to corrupt and use these 'valid' instruments of organisation and social order. The Law, Scientific Theory and Religious beliefs all inadvertently play a part in helping to corrupt the natural adaptive nature of human social development. The 'Ministry of New Ideas' (borrowed, or stolen and corrupted from those more enlightened) also play a part in this distorting process. The institutions are often led and funded by those with a vested and self interests, often the least appropriate to take charge of such important bodies of knowledge and influence. Those with more reasoned approaches to the management of change are often seduced by other, less virtuous influences, and are corrupted in the process of fitting in with the prevailing power base of an institution. This is all done in the name of the 'management of change'. It is easy to cover up a lie by illustrating a valid truth. It is a simple conjuring trick, a mind game. Criminals play these same kinds of mind games. The drug courier will say ' I am carrying flour', a truth that he hopes will dissuade the investigator from identifying the heroine camouflaged within with it. The successful fraudster will hide his true intentions in some convincing package of truth. By slight of mind, as well as slight of hand, they will play to your greed and / or naivety, or our good intentions, to convince us to part with something they want. The more flour and flattery in the packaging, the more difficult to identify the underlying deceit, even if you know something must be wrong. Sadly, this kind of deceit also generates wider distrust, which then undermines sound thinking and more reasonable practice within and institution. They become defensive, self protecting and risk adverse. The whole package becomes corrupted by association and all other shipments become suspect. It can take a long time and a lot of energy and money, to undo these simple corruptions, once they are identified in some way. We are usually to polite to call these by their name but that is what they are, isn't it? A white collar crime which cost institutions millions of pounds, employee distress, customer dissatisfaction, reduced quality of life and even fatalities. It is precisely the same kind of process used to influence the management of institutions. The underhand and illicit competitive practices being used in modern institutions have actually made this even worse. What is just about acceptable in semi criminal, unfair world of competitive business, does not sit well with social institutions that are there to provide and even 'assess', our fundamental needs and reduce the risks that we may face. The most serious corruptions are camouflaged and we are convinced that the justifications are wholly acceptable (as some aspects often are, in principle). It is the bits that are hidden within the justifications, that constitute the corrupt use of the power in these institutions. We all pay a higher price as a result. Those who pay the highest price are those who are made exempt from having a due influence. Those who are 'disqualified' to have a say, or who are ignored, or dismissed as being irrelevant, incoherent, misguided and paranoid. Some are, of course but it is also a convenient package to dismiss all that is inconvenient. Like the elastic band being stretched to breaking point, delay natural evolution and social adaptation and you risk a revolution, with its overreactions and uncontrolled, destructive forces. Worse still, you risk the collapse of an institution (like the Wall Street Crash & Black Monday & Wednesday). How far is your institution stretching the truths, how delusional is your profession? The institutions are developed and managed by human beings and we know how powerful social forces can be in stretching truth and reality for cohesive groups of people, brought together for any kind of purpose (check out the 'isms'). Technological advances, and the associated social adaptations, provide us with new knowledge and perspectives not previously available, at least in the more advanced forms now available. Methods for recording and transmitting knowledge have advanced and are not so easily restricted to 'privileged'. We can think more freely, discuss more openly and influence more widely. The institutions are aware of this and use it to their own benefit, legitimate and otherwise. We can do the same. Presenting sound argument, examples of injustice, incompetence, dishonesty, prejudice and just plain ignorance (the most common failing). So; How does this affect the areas of mental health and the personal abuses. Well, hopefully you have already a pretty good idea of how this is happens. I am hoping you will tell me some of the ways you have experienced this. I have my more rational arguments else where in on this site. Here I want to be emotional. I have witnessed to much injustice and unreasonable practice in the name of 'mental health'. In the West we compare ourselves favourably with old Russia and other abusive mental health cultures. We are often just more clever in our ignorance and prejudice. Genius is a more secure form of madness, and conversely; madness is the negative and sometimes destructive form of creativity. The term Madness here is the concept we have taken for ourselves; to own and present in a more constructive, predictable and adaptive form. I will be giving my forceful opinions on these areas and leave the support of these opinions to else where. These come under various headings listed on the left. The biological aspects are mostly covered by the topics on Genetics and on Disability. There are two short arguments on the topics of social and psychological aspects and these are unified in Psycho-social perspective; 'Psychosocial Plugged'. Many of the political and economic arguments are well known to many and are often wrongly attributed to Karl Marks and to Communism. This is a typical way of attempting to undermine sound logic and good evidence. In fact, some of the concepts are taken from these sources but similarly, sound concepts that can be found in other political and economic circles are also borrowed and adapted for my purpose. As you will see from my discussion on Genetics and elsewhere, there are overlapping perspectives and alternative pathways to the same ends. Any idea that is sound and representative of a reality, is worth incorporating into a complex social discussion. Some pathways may be straighter than others and some concepts may be clearer. I will attempt to clean and straighten them up for you and show how they relate to each other and my broader theory. | Guidelines on the use of terms:Media Prejudice:
It is generally understood that much of the press compete with each other to get the attention of readers. In doing so they have often catered to peoples prevailing prejudices. In doing so they feed that prejudice until they are embarrassed into changing tack, or the Law prohibits them continuing.Social Psychology:
Social Psychology concerns itself with the social features & character of human thought and behaviour and the forms of relationships they establish. For myself, there is no other form human psychology. Except for a few exceptions, all psychological studies are of the 'averages' and 'norms'. Individual psychologies are unique. The generalisations are about the nature of human thinking and behaviour in general.Perspectives:
I use the term perspective much like it is used in photography. Perspective is a perceptual & conceptual 'view', from a particular position, with a limited width of conceptualisation. Like physical objects, conceptions closest to us loom larger and more detailed. Those things that are farthest from out from the 'minds eye' seem smaller, less distinct, less detailed. Other things are beyond the horizon of our experience.Mental Health:
Mental health is maintained through the psychological & emotional adjustment to a changing social milieu, whereby; the individual's physical, psychological & emotional (including spiritual) needs are adequately fulfilled, utilising their own & community resources, without significant disadvantage to self & others.
It is achieved whereby the internal world of the individual is in some measure of synchronisation with (a significant part of) the external world. The adjustments, both ways, take account of natural reactions to physical, psychological, emotional and social trauma.
While this is achieved, the individual will feel safe with their thoughts and feelings. The community will understand and be appropriately responsive to, the person's behaviour. Social interdependence is recognised and achieved.Mental Illness:
This is the psychological and emotional condition which arises when the person's internal world is significantly out of sync with the external world. The person may no longer feel safe with their thoughts & feeling, even when these are reasonable reactions to prevailing circumstances.
There may be effective miscommunication between the person's internal & external worlds. The consequence can be that they become increasingly detached from the thinking & feelings of others, to the extent that relationships break down, as the social world fails to understand what is happening.
Recovery then requires an altered perspective from others. This may take various forms, but it is the process of social re-engagement that is most significant in any recovery.
Clinical interventions can help in the most severe cases, particularly where there is clearly an organic causation. The damages 'social connections' still require repairing and this would only appear to be benefited by sensitive social interventions.Psycho-Social:
The psychology of the individual is linked to the social milieu Although behaviours and thinking may become increasingly entrenched with time, there is, none the less, an on going relationship, with positive and negative influences, with the external social world.
We continue to experiences the consequence of the relationship between our internal selves and our external social world. Patterns of psycho-social thinking and behaviour, set down in the earliest years, will continue to have influence and become progressively transformed, throughout our lives.Institutionalisation:
There is a natural tendency, in the process of social change, for there to be a resistance, which moderates the speed & adjusts the pressure for change, ensuring the viability of it. The need for change has to be proven to the intuitive, or intellectual satisfaction of the affected culture.
In less socially developed groups this resistance is expressed directly by the members of the group and any leaders. In more advanced groups the resistance is expressed by its institutions and their representatives, periodically moderated by leaders and representatives of the group.
There is a power struggle between the established power base (established knowledge, practices & attitudes) and the initiators of change (often the young, or an 'enlightened' individuals, or groups with special interest). Ideally, benefits are checked against disadvantages and the changes moderated and tested in practice, before being full implementation.
This process can be anything from war, physical struggle, revolution and resistance, through to rational dialogue and debate. Whatever the process, any established institutions will remain resistant, because they are, by their nature, organs of stability and continuity. The leaders and administrators establish policies and procedures which are typical of institutions everywhere.
The natural process of change has historically been slow and gradual. Institutions evolved as the changes happened. In modern societies, knowledge & experience advances more quickly and some institutions can lag behind, especially if they are not adequately included in the dialogue. Further more, vested interests, by managers, administrators and agents, can seriously hold back this process of change.
This is what is understood to be the 'institutionalisation' of ideas, practices and attitudes.Prejudice:
There is a common understanding of what prejudice is. I think that a good starting definition is that it is the 'pre-judging' of people & groups. That is; It is the judging of attitudes and conduct on the basis of the superficial character, rather than the fuller understanding of underlying philosophy, purpose and intentions. It is often judgment on the basis of the hearsay of others.
Prejudice is often the result of generalisations made on the basis of some initial negative impact on a prevailing culture. Sometimes this impact is correctly interpreted but the interpretation is projected onto a whole group, as being typical. Sometimes the impact is assumed, rather that real and relationships between conflicting groups is clouded by gross misunderstanding, self interest and false representation by powerful / influential individuals, groups and institutions.Relative Injustice:
I have coined this term to represent a number of inconstancies that can be found in the administration of justice anywhere. This is not so much expressed by the Courts, where the decisions are open to public and media scrutiny. There are relative injustices here but these are often generated and transferred by the supporting institutions of court administrators, police and other professionals.
Relative injustice is disproportionate representation of groups; by race, colour, class and other 'types', that are targeted for investigation and subsequently 'processed' for particular kinds of crimes. Part of this relative injustice is a consequence of cultural prejudices and part is due to an over reaction to identified, existing prejudices.
Another aspect of this kind of injustice is the relative differentiation of forms of 'mitigation', some of which are 'justified', but much of which is 'unjustified'. Changes in this area have particularly affected people with borderline learning difficulties and some kinds of mental health issues. Some of the demarcations are increasing arbitrary and prejudicial.Institutional Change:
The process of institutionalisation has been described earlier. This is a negative consequence of pressure for change. Institutions have a more beneficial resistance to change, which serves and important role under normal circumstances.
If groups, societies and their institutions changed immediately, in response to changing social pressures, then stability of that group, or society would be compromised. The 'natural' resistance is there to moderate and check out the wider consequences of any pressures for change.Action & Reaction:
The features of 'action and reaction' are very important in dealing with conflict, abuse and in the dealing with people exhibiting mental health, alcohol and drug, and criminal behaviours. Just as under-reaction can appear to provide justification and limited containment of behaviour that offends the public interest,; So too, 'over-reaction' can generate a counter reaction that has even bigger negative impact on the culture and society. This is especially the case where the is evident 'relative injustice' and 'Institutional prejudice'.
There are clear dangers in being under, or over reactive to situations and circumstances. Reactions are to be expected in many professional and institutional practices. It is in our interests as professionals, members of a community / society and as arbiters of justice, fairness and best practice, to recognise a mediate these 'reactions'.
Action and reaction consequences have significance in all areas of group, community, institutional and social practices. It has wide implications in understanding and helping 'victims' understand the part they inadvertently play in their torment. It also illustrates the part that professionals can inadvertently play in mediating conflict and dealing with accusation.
Not appreciating the full significance of 'action and reaction (& counter reaction)' can mean that the victim is treated as the perpetrator. Abusers are often very clever and manipulative. By their nature they are dishonest. Prejudice is often a strong influence in misunderstanding the action-reaction consequences, generating Relative Injustice.Conventions:
There are two common usages of the term. The most frequently used is the loose form that describes a generally agreed & established way of doing things, especially social behaviour. The more formal use relates to an agreed set of conduct & practices, written down and agreed to be adhered to by the signatories.Attitudes:
Our attitudes not only reflect how we think and feel, they influence what and how we perceive things. They have the feature of self fulfilling prophesies in that attitudes tend to seek information, or influence ways of perceiving events & characteristics, which re-enforce the prevailing attitudes.
Attitudes are also somewhat infectious. If we choose to engage with individual & groups that have features that we are attracted to there is a good likelihood that our attitudes will progressively correspond to those of the group. This tendency has positive & negative effect, according to the general social inclination of the group.
By their nature, the psychological feature, that we describe at as Attitude, is prone to evolve with experience, be resistant to temporary change but open to persuasion over a longer term. It establishes a 'mind set' by which all experiences are judged and further experience is interpreted.Feminism:
This is a movement for the advanced emancipation of women. It has arguably gone through a series of phases in the West, starting at the end of the 19th Century. A second and third phase developed after the two 'world wars'. The 60' saw the start of 4th, most revolutionary phase, which peaked in the 70's & 80s. The 5th phase would seem to be an evolutionary phase, with some redressing of issues relating to status of women in families and with children. This phase is significantly influenced by the East.Resistance:
This relates to the resistance to change in social order and relationships. There are three qualities of resistance to change that interest me: Cautious, Natural and Prejudicial. These are three manifestations of the same underlying psycho-social propensity. This natural tendency to resist change has adaptive benefits. Without it there would be no social stability.
The process of social adaptation needs these phases, rather like stepping stones, to ensure that a pressure for change is not just a passing fad. Power:
We often talk of power within relationships. This feature of energy and orientation (direction) is demonstrated by the agent(s) that have the strongest relative influence upon dynamics of an interpersonal, or group relationship. This may be identified as an individual, or sub-group, who initiate and maintain the dynamics within the wider group. The power not only generates complementary action, or reaction in others but also tends to give the dynamics an orientation, direction, or trend. Energy without direction is chaotic and represents general, undirected, disorder.Adaptive and Reactive:
These are opposites in the process of adjustment within social relationships. The terms largely speak for themselves. For me they have no 'value' other than that they describe a process of adjusting towards a static state of stability or stagnation, or else; towards increasing dynamic state of resonance or dissonance.
The terms themselves are the positive and negative aspects of change. No other value is intended; change in either direction can be either constructive, or destructive in character (as qualified by the defining terms) . The observable trends can be see as either Adaptive: action and complementary action, or else Reactive: action and reaction (or counter action).Evolution and Revolution:
These are two process with understood meanings. Evolution is the gradual, interactive process of species change & development (heredity & Genetics). Revolution is the dramatic and relatively sudden change in political control and influence. I use these terms here to represent two forms of social adaptation. Again, there are no values assigned to these forms of change, they must be further qualified if we wish to indicate social benefit, or disadvantage (if there are either).Religious Beliefs:
Religious and spiritual beliefs have always appeared to be a feature of human order and civilisation. Apart from the usual social animal's need for pragmatic order and structure, humans seem to need & tend to acquire, an intellectual and emotional explanation for that order.
This need has a mystical quality and a pragmatic quality. The mystical quality is represented in religious ideas and doctrine and the pragmatic quality seems to be represented in the languages of science and technology. Both can co-exist, each compensating for the shortfalls of the other.
When two or more cultures meet, or clash, the differences in belief systems can cause conflict. This is the result of the insecurity that can arise when ones own established belief system is undermines by 'evidence', or by other, contrasting, credible explanations. It can be loosely described as 'rocking the boat'.Race & Colour (Difference):
Physical difference within social grouping can have a profound impact upon contrasting cultures. Any differences can, as we can see above. Our existing stable and hitherto reliable (if largely prejudiced) understanding is disrupted by the existence of 'difference' and 'similarity' which falls outside of our previous, normal experience, or rational explanation.
This may be due to a new 'alien' experience, or a challenge to the existing 'prejudicial' belief system which had artificially resolved the cultural fear of 'differences'. When evidence is first identified, which now suggests a belief system had been inadequate, there is a natural tendency to challenge and contain the intellectual & emotional assault.
With adjustment over time the prejudices can tend to subside, either by an adaptive process of acclimatisation, or helped by changes in the social order and social rules / Laws. If this is resisted then a more revolutionary, self emancipating process usually takes over (as in Feminism), or as in classic revolution involving primitive conflict. Disability (Difference):
Again, awareness of physical difference, and any changes in the perception of them (especially where previous explanations have comfortably resolved experienced contradictions), tend to cause emotional & intellectual discomfort to the established culture.
Belief systems have evolved which sought to explain differences from the 'norm' and as these become established they represent physical and emotional 'security' for the believers. Language is so powerful because it is one of the forms of 'conceptualising' or 'intellectualising' our experiences.
When new evidence comes along, or when there is opportunity to experience 'differences' which were artificially restricted, or when an alternative & more credible explanation regarding difference is expressed, cultures tend to react with prejudice initially. Eventually adaptive, or reactive process takes over, as described in the above examples. Sexual Orientation (Difference):
Sexual orientation was once seen as a mental and moral aberration, comparable with many other 'mental health' categories. Once it was understood that ordinary people lead very ordinary lives with this 'hidden' difference, and once the issue came out the closet, cultures were forced to adjust their previous perceptions and explanations.
Behavioural differences can be more easily hidden, presented in more acceptable forms (arts, entertainment & bravado), or camouflaged to be something else; confabulation. Once the more observable differences had come out of the closet and effective methods for inducing change in attitudes and reactions had been demonstrated, the same processes were used to challenge conventional views and behaviours in this area. The Law and social attitudes have been changing since.Difference (In General):
The social features that are evident in the acceptance & tolerance of differences (which have been described in the examples above) are also evident in other areas of difference, prejudice and fear. These other Groups and sub-groups that have been affected include; Learning Difficulties, Mental Illness, Older Age (in western cultures especially), the Young, Homeless, Travellers and any other group who follow a different path, or understand the world differently.
Sanctioning:
The process by which something is made, or appear to have been made, acceptable and reasonable, whether it is or not. The providing of apparent status and validity by some authority or by common consent, or formal agreement, whether this is fair and equitable or not.Corrupt:
That which is not what it is legitimately and honestly represents itself to be. That which deceives and misleads in order to gain unreasonable advantage over others, or that disadvantages them for personal benefit. |
