A rant on craziness
I'm going to muse for a while on the subject of mental disorders. Of course, the concept of insanity is an old one - and unfortunately, I don't think the popular image of it has grown much, even though it has become much better understood in the past century.
If I may grossly oversimplify the complicated and interesting history of insanity in society, I would say that - at least after the time when insanity was seen as demonic (or divine) possession - a person was insane if he was unable to function in society. In some way, that definition persists to this day. The ability to conform to the codes of behavior is a necessary component, if not the entirety, of being deemed sane. Of course, there is another way of breaking the rules of conduct which necessitates a removal from the society at large - but that is characterized as criminal behavior, and is considered willful.
There are, of course, examples of the two poles of sanity and insanity. There is practically an infinitude of examples, in fact. Take the model of neighborhood interaction, who takes an active role in establishing a community, working with the PTA, the neighborhood watch, and so on and so forth. Of course, one need not be a paragon of moral virtue to be perfectly sane (perhaps - that is an interesting question, in itself). The relatively lazy office worker who comes home and plays video games after work to relax is also normal. There is no model for sanity, per se.
Similarly, there is no model for insanity. Since there is not just one mental disorder but a veritable panoply of conditions that make for individuals that cannot fit into the molds of societal interaction. There can be people who respond to any stranger's approach with a ferocious physical assault, or there can be people who believe themselves to be Napoleon, to borrow a quaint popular stereotype.
One would hope that at least most of the time, those who end up institutionalized are people who have severe types of disorders which clearly prevent them from properly functioning in society. We recognize that there are traits in people - in all people, in fact - that are minor impediments to social interaction. Whether it be shyness, a quick temper, a tendency to lie, or what have you. If these characteristics were raised to a sufficiently significant level, they would be precisely the kinds of things that would merit removal in the past, or at least medication in recent years. That is, one can imagine (or you might even know) a person who has such a temper, or is so prone to telling lies, or is so debilitatingly shy that they cannot interact normally.
The problem, then, comes not necessarily from indentifying what is appropriate behavior and what is a mental disorder (at least, not the problem I'm looking at today), but where to draw the line between the two. This is another instance of a Sorites paradox.
I will change the topic somewhat to the drug industry now. No one would argue that in the past ten or fifteen years, the business of selling drugs which alter your state of mind has exploded. I refer, of course, to mood-altering drugs like Zoloft, Paxil, et al as well as drugs like Ritalin which encourages the ability to focus.
There are, I contend, people who are depressed in a way and to a level that necessitates medication. However, I think that there are also many, many people who are taking medication when it is not the best solution. Similarly, there are probably children who do not Ritalin who take it regularly. The reason is that the drug industry, as an abstract entity, has no economic interest in the proper identification of the people who should be taking their drugs. They have a vested interest in convincing as many people as they reasonably can that they are depressed, so that they can sell more antidepressents. Similarly, they have an interest in convincing parents that their children are out of control and need medication in order to be "normal."
Everyone's a little bit crazy, that's my theory. There is no normal. It's not a new conclusion, and when most people say it, I think they mean something different than I do. I'm not saying anything like "you're okay, I'm okay" and that there are not nor should there be normative behaviors. However, I do maintain a much more "variety is the spice of life"-type perspective, by which I mean that the range of behaviors which probably should fall under the umbrella term normal is larger than you might expect.
This is, I suppose, a statement that is akin to the fundamental tenet of my self-proclaimed philosophical standpoint: latitudinarianism. It's a word that means "Holding or expressing broad or tolerant views" but I like to use it as a philosophical perspective. It's different, fundamentally, from relativism. Rather than saying that nothing is objective, I like to say that people tend to define things too narrowly, and we should watch our for that. But that's an essay for a different day.
In summary, be wary of mental disorders and their treatment. I'm beginning to think that I have low-level Asperger's syndrome and might have a hyperactive thyroid gland. So when I say everyone's a little bit crazy, I mean it. There's an attempt in psychological studies to figure out and categorize all the different types of disorders that fall into the autistic spectrum. Let us assume for a moment that this is possible and that one day, psychologists manage to create a successful system for understanding all the various types of mental disorders, extending beyond the autistic spectrum.
Now then, it is possible that everybody has one or more of these disorders, at various levels of prevalance in their personalities. There are no longer angry people, shy people, or liars - but people who have low-level (or high-functioning, to borrow some terminology) manifestations of these heretofore unnamed disorders. If this is the case, is the proper response to allow these variances in personality that admittedly make life difficult, but may also make it interesting? Or do we medicate people towards a single ideal of human behavior?
I think it's clear where I come down on that question, but I don't know what society will eventually decide.
If I may grossly oversimplify the complicated and interesting history of insanity in society, I would say that - at least after the time when insanity was seen as demonic (or divine) possession - a person was insane if he was unable to function in society. In some way, that definition persists to this day. The ability to conform to the codes of behavior is a necessary component, if not the entirety, of being deemed sane. Of course, there is another way of breaking the rules of conduct which necessitates a removal from the society at large - but that is characterized as criminal behavior, and is considered willful.
There are, of course, examples of the two poles of sanity and insanity. There is practically an infinitude of examples, in fact. Take the model of neighborhood interaction, who takes an active role in establishing a community, working with the PTA, the neighborhood watch, and so on and so forth. Of course, one need not be a paragon of moral virtue to be perfectly sane (perhaps - that is an interesting question, in itself). The relatively lazy office worker who comes home and plays video games after work to relax is also normal. There is no model for sanity, per se.
Similarly, there is no model for insanity. Since there is not just one mental disorder but a veritable panoply of conditions that make for individuals that cannot fit into the molds of societal interaction. There can be people who respond to any stranger's approach with a ferocious physical assault, or there can be people who believe themselves to be Napoleon, to borrow a quaint popular stereotype.
One would hope that at least most of the time, those who end up institutionalized are people who have severe types of disorders which clearly prevent them from properly functioning in society. We recognize that there are traits in people - in all people, in fact - that are minor impediments to social interaction. Whether it be shyness, a quick temper, a tendency to lie, or what have you. If these characteristics were raised to a sufficiently significant level, they would be precisely the kinds of things that would merit removal in the past, or at least medication in recent years. That is, one can imagine (or you might even know) a person who has such a temper, or is so prone to telling lies, or is so debilitatingly shy that they cannot interact normally.
The problem, then, comes not necessarily from indentifying what is appropriate behavior and what is a mental disorder (at least, not the problem I'm looking at today), but where to draw the line between the two. This is another instance of a Sorites paradox.
I will change the topic somewhat to the drug industry now. No one would argue that in the past ten or fifteen years, the business of selling drugs which alter your state of mind has exploded. I refer, of course, to mood-altering drugs like Zoloft, Paxil, et al as well as drugs like Ritalin which encourages the ability to focus.
There are, I contend, people who are depressed in a way and to a level that necessitates medication. However, I think that there are also many, many people who are taking medication when it is not the best solution. Similarly, there are probably children who do not Ritalin who take it regularly. The reason is that the drug industry, as an abstract entity, has no economic interest in the proper identification of the people who should be taking their drugs. They have a vested interest in convincing as many people as they reasonably can that they are depressed, so that they can sell more antidepressents. Similarly, they have an interest in convincing parents that their children are out of control and need medication in order to be "normal."
Everyone's a little bit crazy, that's my theory. There is no normal. It's not a new conclusion, and when most people say it, I think they mean something different than I do. I'm not saying anything like "you're okay, I'm okay" and that there are not nor should there be normative behaviors. However, I do maintain a much more "variety is the spice of life"-type perspective, by which I mean that the range of behaviors which probably should fall under the umbrella term normal is larger than you might expect.
This is, I suppose, a statement that is akin to the fundamental tenet of my self-proclaimed philosophical standpoint: latitudinarianism. It's a word that means "Holding or expressing broad or tolerant views" but I like to use it as a philosophical perspective. It's different, fundamentally, from relativism. Rather than saying that nothing is objective, I like to say that people tend to define things too narrowly, and we should watch our for that. But that's an essay for a different day.
In summary, be wary of mental disorders and their treatment. I'm beginning to think that I have low-level Asperger's syndrome and might have a hyperactive thyroid gland. So when I say everyone's a little bit crazy, I mean it. There's an attempt in psychological studies to figure out and categorize all the different types of disorders that fall into the autistic spectrum. Let us assume for a moment that this is possible and that one day, psychologists manage to create a successful system for understanding all the various types of mental disorders, extending beyond the autistic spectrum.
Now then, it is possible that everybody has one or more of these disorders, at various levels of prevalance in their personalities. There are no longer angry people, shy people, or liars - but people who have low-level (or high-functioning, to borrow some terminology) manifestations of these heretofore unnamed disorders. If this is the case, is the proper response to allow these variances in personality that admittedly make life difficult, but may also make it interesting? Or do we medicate people towards a single ideal of human behavior?
I think it's clear where I come down on that question, but I don't know what society will eventually decide.
posted by Matthew at 12:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home