Skip to main content

Thoughts on "The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness"

The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness by R. D. Laing

This work represents a criticism of psychiatry. It fundamentally questions some basic premises that psychiatry has about itself and its role, as well as the "mentally disordered".

Laing starts the book first by examining different angles by which one can view a human being - a human being can be a person, and a human being can be an organism. Therefore - when a human being speaks, you can either look at the content of what they express, or you may look at it as a mechanical/biological process that manifests. According to Laing, one fundamental problem in psychiatry is that it's devoted to the latter (as a biological organism) even though the discipline itself is a study and therapy relating to personhood, something that on the surface at least does appear rather absurd.

In this work he brings the example of "hebephrenic" and "catatonic" individuals to make his point - which is:

1. There is value and meaning even in speech that is generally regarded as severely disorganized and incomprehensible at first sight (he claims this incomprehensibility can be traced to a lack of willingness to understand, on the psychiatrist's part)

2. A certain degree of symptoms that are regarded as demonstrations of a mental disorder can be directly traced to the de-humanizing treatment psychiatry offers. He provides what he considers to be the legitimate motivations people that suffer from a mental disorder have to display "symptoms" while treated - for example an agitated behavior can represent a legitimate sense in which the patient feels that they are not being viewed as persons, and protest that in a form of agitation.

Laing, among other things, claims that even delusions are the result of real existential and phenomenological concerns that simply manifest in a way that's no longer abstract, but rather as plain facts. For example, a delusion that one does not exist can be the result of someone having grown up with a severe lack of autonomy and with the feeling that they were never able to become their own person.

To the end of providing an alternative to the (also since then) increasingly medicinal approach in psychiatry that fundamentally frames 'mental disorders' as chemical imbalances and the like, he utilizes a phenomenological and existentialist lens with which to view mental hardships, in addition to psychoanalysis - thus reframing disorders that are just seen as chemical imbalances, and the resulting behavior as simply incomprehensible or irrelevant into representatives of intelligible concerns that an individual faces.

For the record, he doesn't claim a lack of connection between chemical balance and mental health - but he claims that solely focusing on that breeds a completely wrong attitude that dehumanizes the mental health patients and in fact worsens their suffering. He thinks, for example, that at least some of the recoveries from psychosis represent repression - by which a false "sane" persona is constructed but in which internally the person struggles just as much.

Whether his analysis is truly correct or not I can't say, but I do think this humane approach towards mental health is valuable and eye-opening. At the very least he provides food for thought and does bring examples that at least seem to demonstrate the limitations of the dominant attitudes in psychiatry as it currently is.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Thoughts on "Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties"

  Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties by Tom O'Neill " The evidence I’d amassed against the official version of the Manson murders was so voluminous, from so many angles, that it was overdetermined. I could poke a thousand holes in the story, but I couldn’t say what really happened. In fact, the major arms of my research were often in contradiction with one another. It couldn’t be the case that the truth involved a drug burn gone wrong, orgies with Hollywood elite, a counterinsurgency-trained CIA infiltrator in the Family, a series of unusually lax sheriff’s deputies and district attorneys and judges and parole officers, an FBI plot to smear leftists and Black Panthers, an effort to see if research on drugged mice applied to hippies, and LSD mind-control experiments tested in the field… could it? There was no way. " This quote from the final chapter of "Chaos" summarizes the results of the effort that was made to dispel the lies...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thoughts on "Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism"

  Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism by Benedict Anderson In this book there is an attempt, one that I'd characterize as McLuhanist , to bring into intelligibility how material conditions brought about the consciousness of nationalism - inventing a form of membership that until recently did not exist and also made no sense. The root Anderson locates as, in his opinion, that most substantial is the advent of print. He observes the consequences of print and how it yielded a national consciousness. First he starts, in indeed a manner that I wouldn't be surprised to find written by McLuhan - by expressing a different attitude towards simultaneity that developed due to print culture. The mass produced books and newspapers allowed for a new consciousness in which many people, most of whom one isn't familiar with, all participate in reading the very same words, and in the exact same fashion as countless nameless others. This, Anderson believe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thoughts on "Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?"

  Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher " It is easier to imagine the end of the world than an end to capitalism. "  That's the key sentence that sums up, very broadly, the idea of what "capitalist realism" really is. If, at the past, certain political and economic orders needed to employ vast amounts of propaganda to justify themselves (Liberal Capitalism, too, did so quite until fairly recently, " The American Dream " and the like) nowadays Capitalism requires no such thing. Paradoxically, it employs a certain cynicism and anti-utopian sentiments to maintain its entrenchment. The reason it can do that is because, instead of competing for our sympathy, Capitalism, and in particular Neoliberal Capitalism (characterized by a totalizing market that pervades all spaces, including in the private sphere, or what Fisher himself termed "Business Ontology") simply occupies everything that the eye can see, stretching from one hor...
Post a Comment
Read more