MolokoMilkPlus said:
Foucault believed psychiatry was faulty because in its broadness and doctrine, it only makes conclusions on previous samples and does not assess the individual. Foucault believed that since science cannot logically assess every individual, any attempt to do so would merely be a pseudo-science.
It's tough to dispute what Foucault is saying here, mainly because I can't tell if he is claiming that all psychiatrist/psychologist have this mentality, or whether this is a critique of some of the prevalent theories on mental illness.
In other words, what Foucault is saying is inaccurate as to what the majority of psychiatrists actually do in their practice, but would in fact agree with his philosophy. There is a distinction which needs to be made here - mental illness is an extremely wide ranging category of "diagnosis?s", and "abnormal" psych is far different than, say, "personality diagnosis". In other words, it's important to understand that things like schizophrenia and bi-polar illness are far different than the very misunderstood personality characteristics. Bi-polar illness is a illness which can be understood scientifically, and the treatment methods are validated by proven results.
The personality characteristics, such as "avoidant", "histrionic" and so forth, aren't meant to be taken as literal diagnosis, but rather as a language for doctors to be able to talk to each other with. That is part of the danger of internet resources which list these as diagnosis (and they are listed as such in the DSM-IV); people than diagnosis themselves and believe this is who they are, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is largely the critique Foucault is probably talking about; the idea that psychiatrists label people and view them as categories. While there are always going to be doctors who aren't completely competent, as with any field, the majority consensus is that the goal in psychotherapy is to allow a patient to make the connections and self-awareness themselves. It is not supposed to be a dogmatic practice in which the therapist tells the patient what is wrong with them, but rather a process of self-discovery. Read the book ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat?, and you?ll get an idea of how psychology actually works.
As far as it being a pseudo-science, again, the field itself is so diverse that it?s hard to know where to begin. Anyone who thinks the field is a pseudo-science probably hasn?t taken many psychology-oriented courses. It?s laughable really, because the amount of detail which goes into the research, and the independent recreation of a theory by other scientists demonstrates that psychology is indeed scientific.
MolokoMilkPlus said:
An example of this would be two people diagnosed with the same mental illness. Foucault's theories on individuality would imply that each mental illness is unique to that individual, and it cannot be compared to the mental illness of previous samples. As such, treating a particular individual's mental illness under the guidelines of someone else's mental illness was faulty. Furthermore, what constitutes a mental illness is often under debate.
Certainly a valid point, but he either shows a misunderstanding of what psychiatry actually does, or was written in reaction to what some psychiatrists were doing at the time. A mental illness diagnosis is not used to tell the individual ?this is what is wrong with you, and you need to follow exactly what I say?. Most of the time, the psychiatrist won?t even tell the person that they are diagnosed with X, as it tends to impose that on a person, making it harder for them to overcome and recover. They are mostly just meant as guidelines for doctors to use between themselves.
The exception to that would be, as I mentioned above, things such as bi-polar illness. Those types of illness often require medication and a more structured treatment plan. Despite that, the psychiatrist still recognizes the individual and should not view the person with the mental illness as being a mental illness.
MolokoMilkPlus said:
Foucault and others influenced by him were fairly critical of the APA's stance on homosexuality and other sexualities/transgendered identities as a "mental illess". The conclusion of his: no illness is alike, while they may be similiar. Many who agree with Foucault here believe psychiatry to be absolutist.
Yeah, that?s very outdated, and shows more of the cultural mentality of the time.
Again, I can see why someone would think psychiatry to be absolutist. Having worked with many, many psychologists & psychiatrists, having a mom who managed a mental health unit, family members who live with mental illness (one bi-polar, others general depression), I have a lot of experience with many, many sides of psychology/psychiatry. There are people in the profession who use psychology in an absolutist fashion, however this speaks more of the individual ?professional? than it does of the field itself. It would be like judging the field of neurosurgery because there are a few doctors who routinely fuck up.
As you can see, this is a very complex field, and most arguments against psychiatry make global labels on the entire profession. Many of the critiques of psychiatry are often valid ideas, such as what Foucault is saying, but are inaccurate of what psychiatry actually does.
I have known plenty of people who have made great progress while working with a psychiatrist/psychologist. I have also seen people who had made progress in treating serious mental illness such as bi-polar illness, lose everything because they stopped taking their medication.
For the many people who critize psychiatry, I offer a question. What would you do with the people who are currently suffering from what we call mental illness? If psychiatry is supposed to be evil, than surely there must be an alternative to treating these individuals. What solution would you offer to people who believe there are cameras in television sets, watching their every move so they can broadcast them? How do you help a person who hasn't left their house in 10 years because they are afraid of public spaces and people? What do you tell someone who believes God speaks to them, and are planning on spending all their money simply because he has promised to give them millions in the future?
--------------------
The very nature of experience is ineffable; it transcends cognitive thought and intellectualized analysis. To be without experience is to be without an emotional knowledge of what the experience translates into. The desire for the understanding of what life is made of is the motivation that drives us all. Without it, in fear of the experiences what life can hold is among the greatest contradictions; to live in fear of death while not being alive.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale
MolokoMilkPlus 
niteowl 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
Unagipie
SneezingPenis
Jokeshopbeard
lolwut
MushmanTheManic
Cherk
WStallion