BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Extreme forms of prejudice considered as mental illness

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
*
03:21 / 14.12.05
Some psychiatrists argue that certain kinds of bias should be covered by the DSM.

Mental-health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and some patients are disabled by these beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.

So. Simple prejudice grown out of hand? A mental illness to be treated like any other? Is this kind of debilitating fear/hatred of others maybe a manifestation of some already-named mental illness which takes the form of extreme bias? That's my reading; what's yours?
 
 
astrojax69
19:58 / 14.12.05
i'm not so sure id, that there isn't something more to this. after all, it seems to be the case that we see the world, most of us, through our concepts derived from experience and then impose these on reality - we don't really see what is out there! it is hard to get someone to see the world fresh and our mindsets, or prejudices, are very pesuasive in modulating our behaviour. i can't see why an extreme form of this instantiation of mindstates wouldn't manifest in this kind of psychpathology...

even if it were some form of a pre-named illness, then this broadening of our understanding of how it manifests can lead to a broader understanding of mental illnesses anyway, and so perhaps lead to new understandings of treatments and care. and acceptance.
 
 
Ganesh
20:21 / 14.12.05
I'd have thought these examples would fit into the established classification systems, either in the anxiety disorders section (as a form of social phobia or panic disorder) or, if sufficiently extreme (and insight into irrationality has been lost), a delusional disorder or overvalued idea. I don't see any particular need - or sense - in attempting to introduce new subsets.
 
 
Shrug
02:00 / 15.12.05
To provide another case study:
I seem to remember that The House of Obsessive Compulsives series (on C4 a little while back) contained a man with a problem like this. Although the OCD manifested itself in numerous other ways. One element was that he had become horribly afraid of shouting racist abuse at different ethnic groups. I don't think that he was aware whether he actually did this or not, only suspected that he did, or may have done unbeknownst. But this obviously caused him alot of social distress. He did state that he had no wish to be percieved as racist, had no racist views himself and had no wish to cause hurt or promote racial intolerance. He even went as far as carrying water around in his mouth constantly to avoid the possibility of such a situation arising (which eventually rotted all his teeth away, very painful it looked too).
I think that the problem was treated in the same way as other forms of OCD were treated in the programme (extreme cleanliness for example) through gradually increasing levels of exposure.
While I'm hardly an expert, like Ganesh said I think that the above could fit into pre-assigned categories of disorder (social phobia, anxiety, OCD) but wouldn't it be of some use to gain a greater understanding of why (rather than how) these disorders choose to manifest in these very specific ways?

Is this kind of debilitating fear/hatred of others maybe a manifestation of some already-named mental illness which takes the form of extreme bias?

Could equally be a present strong prejudice so supressed that it manifests as mental illness or extreme distress. As a result of previous bad experience with someone of a certain ethnicity or sexual preference maybe: some emotional tone or post traumatic stress conflicting with the logical in some disastrous cataclysmic way.
 
 
Ganesh
11:13 / 15.12.05
... wouldn't it be of some use to gain a greater understanding of why (rather than how) these disorders choose to manifest in these very specific ways?

Possibly - and everyone from Freud onwards has talked about this - but I don't think it's necessary or logical to create new diagnostic subgroups in order to do this. It's also perhaps worth pointing out that 'why' questions aren't quite as amenable to the scientific method...
 
 
Anthony
19:50 / 05.01.06
i am certain that the concept of mental illness has always been used to filter out what society considers to be undesirable qualities, in order to impose uniformity on the masses. in light of this, there's no real reason why homophobia, racism etc should not be seen in this light if it furthers a better cause.
 
 
Ganesh
20:21 / 05.01.06
I'm less certain of this, therefore I'd argue against their inclusion.
 
 
matthew.
00:59 / 06.01.06
I'm frightened that the inclusion of these "disorders" in the DSM will cause the DSM to be overinflated, bloated, and useless when trying to actually diagnose somebody with an actual disorder.

Oh. Too late.

Moving on... how will this help the professionals "cure" the "victims" of these disorders? (I'm using this language in a semi-ironic way) Essentially what I'm asking is, what is the point? Do we really need more sub-sub-sub groups?
 
 
Ganesh
01:34 / 06.01.06
No, we don't - and the fact that it is possible to misuse certain elements of diagnostic systems is no reason to abandon any attempt at rigour altogether and just chuck in any old crap we fancy stigmatising.
 
 
Anthony
14:37 / 06.01.06
i'm afraid it happens. i'm not saying that it's a good thing, but it happens. if you don't wish to believe that then go & book yourself into a mental hospital for a little while & see what kind of experience you have.

i've accepted that it happens, with a broad spectrum of things, for example non-standard spiritual beliefs are always good examples... and in view of the fact that it happens, and nothing is really going to change that, it might as well be focused on genuinely undesirable extreme and horrible traits like homophobia and racism.

if people are likely to believe they're mad for having these impulses then society is likely to change for the better. and a somewhat more tolerable way of life may come to pass for folk who simply want to be themselves & live their lives how they want to live them.
 
 
Anthony
14:41 / 06.01.06
i understand that this way of shall we say post-moral or amoral thinking sounds repellent but in my view, it's the only way to deal with the world the way that it is, which chose to forego much love & decency a long time ago. expecting it to conform to our moral expectations is a waste of time. we have to, i think, face the way things are and get on with it.

tell me realistically that psychiatry has not been used to enforce the prejudices of the status quo.
 
 
Anthony
14:44 / 06.01.06
i far from believe we should "chuck in any old crap that we fancy stigmatising" but we could at least work intelligently with the way society is evolving or seeks to evolve, and use things to that purpose. otherwise which purposes are things going to be used for exactly?

if homophobia is seen as a mental illness there may be far less instances of actual mental illness among gay people.

i'm all for it personally.
 
 
Anthony
14:48 / 06.01.06
try sitting the hospital admittance exam. do you have any special powers? well, i've had telepathic experiences... you're a nutter mate.

so for me psychiatry has certainly been used to enforce conventional religious & scientific attitudes. why should it not be used to try to eradicate homophobia & racism too. it makes sense.
 
 
Anthony
14:58 / 06.01.06
whatever it may have been, or whatever it is presented as, there can be no serious doubt that psychiatry is regarded as the enshrinement of what is desirable/undesirable, sane/pathological in human types, and it would be more than possible to say that society on every level has not escaped its influence, particularly as many authors have said, since the effective collapse of the power of organised religion in the west

many of its definitions are entirely arbitary and thousands of years behind the times in any case.

i do feel that psychiatry has the power to create humans according to its own mould. this is a fact that should be taken into consideration when it goes forth to impose its dogma upon the world.
 
 
Anthony
15:07 / 06.01.06
i would genuinely love to see a debate concerning which human types, for instance, couldn't have existed if they had been confined by psychiatric formula; it would doubtless number a great many artists and spiritual renegades. and to take that further and question why psychiatry should be so innately against the artistic-religious impulse in mankind, what kind of ideas and behaviours that this is encouraging in the species, what kind of humans are being produced in this way.

you would have had to forego William Blake, Aleister Crowley, and JC if you're the kind of person who likes JC.. an obvious megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur.
 
 
*
17:34 / 06.01.06
whatever it may have been, or whatever it is presented as, there can be no serious doubt that psychiatry is regarded as the enshrinement of what is desirable/undesirable, sane/pathological in human types, and it would be more than possible to say that society on every level has not escaped its influence, particularly as many authors have said, since the effective collapse of the power of organised religion in the west ... and more

Forgive me for possibly rotting my own thread but... what, the fuck, are you on about?

Before psychiatry existed as a discipline, do you not think human societies had ways of categorizing people into desirable and undesirable types? Do you think diagnosing someone with schizophrenia prevents them also being an artist? Or, to pretend we're on topic, are you under the impression that diagnosing someone with Stupidly Homophobic/Racist Syndrome will prevent them still being stupidly homophobic/racist?

Now if psychiatry proves able to successfully treat schizophrenia, it might change a person's style as an artist, sure. But all artists are not schizophrenic, and artistic ability (or philosophical vision or what have you) is not the same thing as mental illness. If this model is at all valid, which I doubt, and psychiatry proves able to treat SH/RS, it might remove a person's compulsion to be morbidly afraid of teh gais and teh bl*cks, but it won't prevent them just being an asshole with racist opinions.

i do feel that psychiatry has the power to create humans according to its own mould.

Oh, that explains why the country is full of little clones of Ganesh. I had wondered. I hope you're using your powers FOR GOOD, doctor.
 
 
*
17:37 / 06.01.06
(Argh. I can't even be a little snarky without regretting it immediately thereafter. Sorry.)
 
 
Anthony
14:51 / 07.01.06

whatever it may have been, or whatever it is presented as, there can be no serious doubt that psychiatry is regarded as the enshrinement of what is desirable/undesirable, sane/pathological in human types, and it would be more than possible to say that society on every level has not escaped its influence, particularly as many authors have said, since the effective collapse of the power of organised religion in the west ... and more

Forgive me for possibly rotting my own thread but... what, the fuck, are you on about?

that psychiatry is an ideology, and an ideology with significant cultural influence, which instills into people notions of what is "sane" or "insane" behaviour/attitudes etc.

Before psychiatry existed as a discipline, do you not think human societies had ways of categorizing people into desirable and undesirable types?

i do. it's intrinsically in the nature of any culture to fix upon arbitary values & enforce them upon the people within it. psychiatry though was supposedly a branch of medicine and not, particularly, a religion or ideology though it has become this.

Do you think diagnosing someone with schizophrenia prevents them also being an artist? Or, to pretend we're on topic, are you under the impression that diagnosing someone with Stupidly Homophobic/Racist Syndrome will prevent them still being stupidly homophobic/racist?

to diagnose someone with anyone pretty much implies, in the main, that their way of experiencing the world is invalid.

if the culture at large is led, over time, to believe that homophobia & racism are strongly undesirable qualities it may, over time, evolve to a point where they are less and less prevailant.

Now if psychiatry proves able to successfully treat schizophrenia, it might change a person's style as an artist, sure. But all artists are not schizophrenic, and artistic ability (or philosophical vision or what have you) is not the same thing as mental illness.

well i agree wholeheartedly. though the two are often confused.

If this model is at all valid, which I doubt, and psychiatry proves able to treat SH/RS, it might remove a person's compulsion to be morbidly afraid of teh gais and teh bl*cks, but it won't prevent them just being an asshole with racist opinions.

they may be able to be helped to come to an understanding of where their own particular hatred & fears stem from and the irrational basis of them exposed. for the rest of society it may help if it is believed that engaging in this type of behaviour may result in having a Section 3 slapped on one's ass.

psychiatry is an ideology which still has a very real means of enforcing itself. mock that assertion if you will, but you will be revealing yourself to be hopelessly naieve in the process.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:08 / 07.01.06
Anth, I'd like you to go to the wiki and read the section on formatting text. Then come back and use the bold tag to highlight the sections of your post which are quotations. This will make your post easier to read and to understand.
 
 
Dead Megatron
20:16 / 07.01.06
if homophobia is seen as a mental illness there may be far less instances of actual mental illness among gay people.

Not unless the homossexual person has some sort of pathological disgust for the opposite gender (which does happens sometimes - but only sometimes)...

so for me psychiatry has certainly been used to enforce conventional religious & scientific attitudes. why should it not be used to try to eradicate homophobia & racism too. it makes sense.

Because it never really worked in the first instance. ther's no reason to believe it would in the second.

[moderator note: edit to remove racist joke. irrelevant, unneccessary and offensive]
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:51 / 07.01.06
[Mod hat - racist joke above has been moved for moderation, as it adds nothing to the discussion except offensive language]
 
 
*
01:39 / 08.01.06
My point, once you got past all the snark, was that you haven't supported that. You've only stated it to be incontrovertible, something that everyone knows, and something that only naive people don't believe. I'll be happy to give your assertion some weight if you'll actually support it.
 
 
*
03:55 / 08.01.06
Sorry, that was meant to be directed at Anth again, in case that wasn't clear.
 
 
matthew.
13:23 / 08.01.06
Anth: why should it not be used to try to eradicate homophobia & racism too

This isn't to sound snarky, but... exactly, in detail, how does all of the above go ahead and "eradicate" these undesirable traits? As id said above, just by calling it what it is does not mean it's going to stop being what it is.
 
 
Anthony
15:07 / 09.01.06
well eradicate them it won't, obviously, but it could go a long way to help. if someone had to think twice "am i crazy for having these thoughts?".. it may make them incline to wonder whether the problem lies with them.
if there was a stigma attatched in turn by society at large towards homophobia and racism... i mean come on, these points are obvious and i feel like i'm stating the obvious in setting them down. are you arguing that culture does not condition people into ways of thinking?
are you arguing that mental illness is not a very very powerful means of conditioning?
 
 
Anthony
15:09 / 09.01.06
i'm a little tired so didn't express that as exactly as i would have liked, but i mean, take into consideration the taboo that still exists around mental illness and the mentally ill.

i would rather society.. turn all of this to positive ends, maybe fish out a lot of the things that would currently have one branded as crazy, mystical/religious experiences etc....
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:36 / 09.01.06
are you arguing that culture does not condition people into ways of thinking?

On reading this thread I'm finding the strength of your assertions pretty unconvincing. Sure, culture, society and their associated norms will have an impact on people, but this is rather complicated, and far from certain. Human opinions, traits and behaviour seems to me to be far more varied than you seem to be allowing for and the power to control, whether by psychiatry or some other means, is far less potent than you admit.

are you arguing that mental illness is not a very very powerful means of conditioning?

Yeah, I think so. I don't think there are the resources, nor any kind of political will, to enforce mental uniformity. And while I do see people affected by pressures around them, I also see a lot of variation.

So I get that you are saying we should turn the thought police against the bad thoughts....I just don't really believe they are here in the first place.
 
 
Ganesh
16:06 / 09.01.06
I've been kind of trying to sit on my hands with this thread, because it touches on several rather stereotypical concepts that irritate me quite a lot, not least the notion that 'PSYCHIATRY' is some monolithic Borg-like entity composed of cookie-cutter ideologues who actively seek out untroubled free-thinkers, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Child Catcher style in order to squash them into dull social conformity.

I can see how this sort of stereotype arises, but I don't think there's a great deal of evidence for it. If anything, the psychiatrists of my acquaintance spend much of their time resisting pressure from both the Government (spurious 'severe and dangerous personality disorder') and the general public ("my wife's disagreeing with me, she must be crazy") to pathologise 'normal' life problems, and thus deal with them.

Likewise, the diagnostic classifications system used in the UK, the ICD (International Classification of Disorders) is the evolving product of international consensus, based on the best available evidence. One can take issue with the quality of parts of that evidence, particularly concerning conditions sufficiently rare or hard to study that decent research is lacking, but it does not automatically follow that the ICD is a simple rag-bag of anything individual governments fancy stigmatising at any given time. The fact that an umbrella lets in a little water does not mean we should invert it to attempt to collect the rain...
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
18:59 / 09.01.06
thanks Ganesh,

always nice to hear a voice of experience...

pair together public embracing of genetics as an explanation for, well, everything, with a list of behavioural disorders, and we get a wonderful little idea known as Eugenics.

the US implemented policies of sterilisation at the state level. then they stopped.
the Nazis gathered information from the US, and used it for their own purposes.

and we can too, if we decide that some behaviour/disorders are unnacceptable, unnatural and just plain unpleasant.

or we could accept that some people have a whole host of experiences with which to deal, of which we are completely ignorant (I'm thinking of autism or schizophrenia - my ignorance begins here).

the rhetoric of eugenics has cropped up in some circles (mostly in the US). best keep an eye out, lest we start screening ourselves and our unborn for hair and eye colour, height, and disposition.

back to topic:
is the prejudicial behaviour described a symptom of a bigger societal problem, as opposed to an individualised one?

I think the social imposition is a big factor in such "disorders," regardless of the actual physical determinants.

--not jack
 
 
Dr. Tom
09:30 / 17.02.06
Regarding the original Seattle Times Article:

First, I'll eat an unabridged hardback copy of any DSM that includes specific political opinions among the diagnoses. It's not gonna happen any more than the American Psychiatric Association took up M. Scott Peck's call to include "Evil Personality Disorder" in the DSM.

The APA spent decades fighting and warning against Soviet psychiatry in which the profession was clearly a tool of state repression.
The only time in the states that psychiatrists are expected to force treatment is when someone's life or limb is in imminent danger, and then they can use that authority for typically 72 hours before a judge is involved (varying by state somewhat).

As has been pointed out, where racism becomes delusional, or a part of a formal obsession, then the patient is suffering OCD a delusional or other psychotic disorder.
Face it- the reason for the existence of endless arguing about political correctness (Who defines it, is it good or bad, etc.) is because (as the song says) we're all a little bit racist.

Frankly, I think the journalist was looking for somthing provocative and did not give an accurate perspective on the strength of the movement.
 
 
zoemancer
02:20 / 02.03.06
From the article --

"some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis."

"Some" are asking? Who is asking exactly? What exactly is meant by "official" anyway? Seems to me the last thing we need is another "official" psychiatric diagnosis for a human experience that happens to not fit the current status quo of accepted human experiences.

Seems to me this baby (300 year old) Neuro Priesthood was concocted to define the borders of "accepted" reality for the rest of us out here in the commons eh? Should we stray outside the lines we will be quickly "diagnosed" and big pharma gets a new customer.

Thousands of children each year are "diagnosed" as "insert label here" or "insert another label here" and are quickly given a lobotomy in a pill. Studies have shown that by a simple change in diet many of these kids miraculously return to normal. Not to mention the fact that humans are evolving that consciousness is evolving yet we still have a public school system based on way old out dated theories created by way old out dated minds.

I could just as easily sit here and invent a name for any human behaviour that I and my friends deemed not "normal" and if I got enough people to go along with it well then big pharma could just whip up another fucking pill for it. What fun! What power!
 
 
*
02:46 / 02.03.06
I see you read part of the article. Did you also read the thread? Or at least glance through enough to know that there are not one but two members of the clinical mental health care profession posting in it, who have already demonstrated an unwillingness to lie down for the AL SYKIALOGY IS EEEVYL hogma* which has already been spewed, by others, long before you got here?

I'm just curious. If not, now you know, so you can move from there on to the other valuable and considered contributions which you were no doubt about to make as soon as you first exposed yourself to a good kicking for some reason or reasons unknown to me.

(*Dogma which is also hogwash.)
 
 
All Acting Regiment
02:58 / 02.03.06
NJ-

the US implemented policies of sterilisation at the state level. then they stopped.
the Nazis gathered information from the US, and used it for their own purposes.

and we can too, if we decide that some behaviour/disorders are unnacceptable, unnatural and just plain unpleasant.


But from your standpoint, eugenics is unnaceptable- because it labels some things as unacceptable. How are we supposed to stop eugenics if we can't label it as unacceptable?
 
 
zoemancer
03:04 / 02.03.06
id:

Your post asked for an opinion, I gave mine pure and simple. I certainly do not ask anyone to "lie down" to anything.

I am curious though; what was it about my post that got you so aggro? After all, I railed against a belief system not any one person in particular.

Isn't your labeling of what I said as "Hogma" kind of a dogmatic statment in and of itself?

It's cool though I don't expect everyone to agree with what I say or how I say it -- that would be extremely silly.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
03:58 / 02.03.06
Seems to me this baby (300 year old) Neuro Priesthood was concocted to define the borders of "accepted" reality for the rest of us out here in the commons

Seems to me this baby (300 year old) Neuro Priesthood was concocted to further our understanding of the human mind through reason and empirical method, perhaps in order to put an end to witch-burning, left-hand-binding, Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, and other, nasty, bloodily-accepted-reality-defining habits of the grandaddy (1000+ year old) Ecclesiastical Priesthood?
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply