To make my perspective understandable I feel that I need to use a combination of personal experiences, reflections and if you like, my philosophical conclusions.

As much as ADHD is the fashionable ‘disease’ of today’s children (I have personally known almost an entire family of children to be diagnosed with this ‘problem’) I find it quite bizarre, but no more strange than what I experienced as a young person. There are other ‘types of character’ that are not acceptable either - being rather shy, sensitive, quiet etc, of which no amount of ‘rectification’ by subtle and not so subtle coercion, has been able to change basically who I am. After 30years I am no longer ashamed of these traits that have been ‘condemned’. The way I see it now, although ‘my character’ can lead to what is considered ‘anxiety disorders’ I never once came across a ‘therapist’ who acknowledged the positive aspects of having these traits, I can now say with some dignity that, yes, I am all these things and with this, I have genuine compassion, empathy and understanding of many things, it is what led me to become a vegetarian as a young girl. I have a real passion for knowledge and have always been observant and reflective. This can lead to heightened ‘anxiety’ as I do take things rather seriously but it is not anxiety that is ‘disordered’ it is just the effect of a more sensitive awareness, which in turn, depending on how you look at it, is no better or no worse than any other type of awareness but for some reason is looked upon far more critically. This has led me to think about the narrowness of how people are judged concerning their ‘normality’. By constantly focusing on the ideal of a confident, adjusted, happy, assertive, etc, etc individual it is almost like saying that there is only one season of nature that is for real. The contrasting seasons and the different ways that the landscape changes and how each one presents its own unique set of circumstances that we subjectively perceive with all the adjectives that we use to describe nature and the various ways we cope with what each one imposes on us. People, to me are a bit like this in that, just because a persons’ disposition is such that they may perceive the world in what maybe described as how, for example, winter is looked upon does not mean that their perceptions are any less valid than that of the perpetual springtime view. It seems that only lip service is paid to the exhortation of people to ‘be themselves’.

My first encounter with a psych was when I was a very young teenager, I was having difficulty coping with bullying at school, my father’s terminal heart condition (he died when I was 16) being placed in a very low grade which I understood to be the result of some ‘IQ’ test, no one who knew me could understand why and being sexually betrayed by an older neighbour. The thing that I found quite odd was the way in which the child psychiatrist seemed to not take me very seriously, I suppose I was quite naïve as I just said how things were without ever thinking for a moment that what I said would come under suspicion. To me, it was all quite straightforward but as time went on it was unnerving me and I started to doubt myself and felt somewhat defensive about the implication that somehow I was ‘telling stories’. She put me on this medication called Stelazine, I rarely took it for the simple reason I always had an aversion to medication. It was not until sometime later that I discovered to my dismay that this was an anti psychotic. Due to the type of medication and given the impression I was not believed I came to the conclusion rightly or wrongly that it was thought I was suffering from some sort of psychosis. What was I suppose to think? This was later reinforced because as I understand it, this type of medication is not lightly given as a first choice of ‘treatment’ for a young girl who is just anxious (like I honestly thought myself to be) I felt my original problems were never really addressed but these now paled into insignificance compared to this gnawing doubt about myself which I never had before. I can’t quiet explain the sense of loss I felt by being involved with this psych. Your basic and very necessary sense of integrity is on the line if you have been made to doubt, your taken for granted assumption that you are able to tell the difference between a true or false account of your experiences, especially in a medical environment and being so young. For me, apart from the antipsychotic pills in that bottle, there was a dose of invalidation along with an oppressive judgement that fell over me like a dark shadow. To this very day I still have no idea of my ‘diagnosis’, I was kept in the dark like a mushroom, all I know is the effects of placing me in a position of doubting myself so deeply and how it quite profoundly altered my basic sense of trust in myself, that I have never really been able to recapture..

At different times over the years I sought ‘help’ but each time my experiences led to a growing disrespect and anger about what they represent. I kept thinking that things might be different and tried to keep an open mind but my hopes were dashed once too often. My personal feelings are, there are too many conflicting theories and too much deficient labelling of people .It almost seems that by seeing people through their own particular theoretical framework and seemingly assuming that something must be ‘wrong’ with them simply because a person asks for ‘help’, genuine understanding of the problem on the level as it is experienced by the person can be missed, as far as the person is concerned they themselves only know where they stand and how they feel about it. If others are like myself there is (or was) a rather naive assumption that the therapist, (no matter what brand) understands you in a commonsense way and has something comparable to the qualities of a good friend-only in the sense of listening attentively and being compassionate with the added quality of supposedly being able to understand and help you in more constructive ways, unfortunately, I feel this has never been the case for me. Maybe it’s because I just haven’t understood and still don’t understand (despite all my efforts) what the whole thing is all about

.

To give an example about what I mean, this being one of my very last attempts to ‘talk’ with someone. On my very first visit (about 1hr) I told the therapist what was concerning me, I then got the ‘diagnosis’, this time I was co-dependent. I knew almost immediately that it was pointless trying to be understood the way that I felt would be of benefit to me, as she had me boxed and labelled already. I tried to resist this interpretation but the more I tried the more aggressive she became about it. She insisted I buy these books and join a 12-step program, she talked like it was a progressive disease of some kind. It became the explanation for everything, I got the feeling (assuming, I believed her) that if only I didn’t have this co-dependency problem I would never have been conned, hurt, etc, etc, by anybody or anything. I walked away feeling quite disgusted and angry, once again though, letting the sticky label get to me. I ‘chose’ this therapist thinking I would escape the type of oppressive and patronizing attitude of the psychiatrists I saw earlier in my life, I couldn’t have been more mistaken..

There are many things that have puzzled me about ‘mental health industry’ which have personally affected me directly including the broader issues surrounding it, of which I have tried to understand, to help me gain a clearer picture of what I have been up against. Although I have not come close to a satisfactory understanding, there are some aspects that seem to stand out One being deficient labelling as I mentioned before, even though my encounters with ‘therapists’ have been mainly of brief duration and long time lapses in between it was enough to weigh my psyche down with enough ‘defects’ to make me feel in the end that if my physical body had as many defects as my mind I might well be dead In my 20’s I was having some difficulty with ‘anxiety’ I sought ‘help’ after much persuasion by a relative as I was so reluctant after my experience with the child psychiatrist many years before. I told him of my difficulties which were mainly panic attacks and having trouble leaving the house. Again, on the first visit in his words, he referred to me as "a sick, sick girl", he told me that I would have problems all my life and just because I got upset in front of him he said "look at you" making me feel pathetic and hopeless. I went a second time only because ironically I felt rather helpless and hopeless now, before I went to him it was just frustration and annoyance that I couldn’t make it go away He said to me on this occasion that he thought it best that I take medication and suggested I get booked into the funny farm.. No, thanks, I found real help with like people who had at least understanding, compassion and respect, something that seemed to be lacking at the psychiatrists. I am so glad I listened to my own ‘instincts’ because from these people I heard about their unfortunate addiction to tranquillisers and one lovely lady having ECT which didn’t help at all, in fact, made her more fearful. Despite me ‘helping myself’ I was haunted by the psychiatrist’s words of being ‘a sick, sick girl’ I found this to be very oppressive and had a very hard job putting it out of my mind. It just brought back to the fore and reinforced the painful deep doubt that had resided in me ever since I saw the child psychiatrist. The only thing that has kept me going is a small fragile feeling that gives me the will to resist succumbing to, what I sense to be, inaccurate descriptions of myself. I don’t deny that I had panic attacks/agoraphobia, these are accurate descriptions of what I was experiencing but the accuracy stops at the description. This problem was certainly causing me difficulties but I was quite shocked at the sweeping and fatalistic judgement of me and the situation. Nonetheless, I guess no matter how much one part of you disagrees, there is this nagging doubt because you understand that these people are suppose to be experts and in most instances it is very hard to compete with the heavyweight opinions of these ‘experts’, after all, who are you to question. The other niggling worry is, how can it be that each time I come away with the same sense of let down, is it me or is it because there is a certain pervasive attitude that runs through the whole field

.

One thing that did help me was by looking at all my ‘deficient’ labels I have accumulated over the years and ask myself, why does it bother me so much. Apart from the battering to my self esteem, I feel it goes much deeper than this. When you think about it, you only seem to take notice of the finished product of all the various aspects of what make up this thing called your mind. I see perhaps, that it is made up of memory, emotions, intelligence, imagination, personality traits, influences from within and out and many more and the final product is this strange and I suppose unique entity I call ‘me’, my selfhood, the presence inside my head. When a psychiatrist tells ‘me’ in a non-specific and generalised way that I am a ‘sick, sick girl’, presumably it is my mind he is referring to, I can’t help but take it as a judgement of my entire selfhood as I am not consciously aware of what makes up this selfhood, in my everyday functioning I am only simply aware of ‘me’. I can acknowledge, when reflected upon all the different aspects (as above) but even if reflected upon I cannot grasp nor do I have the means to examine how all the intricate details combine to form my ‘mind’ therefore I am very vulnerable to suggestions from ‘experts’ about the state of my mind as I acknowledge my ignorance and can only defend myself by ‘gut’ feeling whereas they, supposedly come from a position of knowledge. This ‘knowledge’ to me, is really quite vague but ironically, it is this vagueness that makes it very difficult to confidently disregard what is said. If I went to a GP and told him of a specific problem and was told there were all sorts of things wrong with my body, that I felt not to be true, I would be able to, due to the more easily verifiable nature of physical problems, be in a fairly confident position to question his ‘diagnosis’ and competence that can be proved if need be, this cannot be done with ‘mental illness’. Unless someone has a true verifiable neurological condition or their behaviour is so disturbing that it is obvious that something is ‘wrong’ I don’t see how placing deficient labels on people so carelessly and obviously with so little regard as to the affects on that person, can be truly justified. Even for those people who appear ‘very disturbed’, humility, care and respect should be exercised before dishing out a label. There are far more implications in discussing the ‘pathology ’of one’s mind than there is in the pathology of one’s sore toe.

My understanding is that psychology, psychiatry, etc, are regarded as professions, to me this means someone who has acquired knowledge and skills that the general population do not commonly possess. Once a person has this status in their chosen field they are privileged to both its higher rewards and the higher responsibility that goes with it. At this point the privileged information and skills can either be used to help or harm. Dealing with ‘mental health’ as these professions do, I would suggest a concrete definition of this profession - the tools of their trade are the words that come forth from their lips. The concepts that are conveyed by psychs through language hold a lot of power and influence over people and because of this they should be held accountable just as other professions are, for the help or harm they inflict.. Simply because of the fact they do hold such power and influence this professions ‘tools of trade’ should be elevated to reflect the importance, weight and consequences it has on people’s lives, often for the rest of their lives. It is so easy to deny and be unacknowledged, because of its intangible nature that allows the whole thing to perpetuate. When someone feels they have been harmed by these people it is very hard to say anything, well, no harm done (physical) so people just walk away and say nothing, feel a lot but can do little about it. I can’t help but feel that part of the reason things have gone the way they have is because there is no real accountability for what is said and is part of a much wider cultural attitude that has a far higher acknowledgement of actual physical damage (including property) than psyche damage eg actions speak louder that words, sticks and stones…, he hasn’t really hurt you until you are bashed up despite the fact that it is only because of our ‘unique mind’ which enables us to understand the concept of justice that can reflect on those bruises and determine that an injustice has been done. Physical violence is rightly condemned but the scales are too uneven. I realise I am getting into really murky waters here, the dilemma of, what I understand to be referred to as mind/body dualism among other aspects of what seems a very complex issue that has many stinging tentacles. I thought reading some articles on ‘verbal/emotional abuse’ would help, at first they seemed alright but then they started irritating me because it seems once again the categorizations, check lists, pathologising ‘offenders’ and ‘victims’ etc .leading to the same phoniness, distortion and lack of spontaneity that encourages the possibility that it will be sneered at, among other negative reactions despite probable good intentions. I suppose the position I take is that starting from the ‘top’, if these mental health professionals were more mindful, respectful and god forbid! ‘took responsibility’ for what they said, because of their influence, people in general may become more aware of their own destructive use of words towards their loved ones and others, how language is used is often the prelude to physical violence. The benefit to them is that they may even receive some genuine respect for really helping the community.

To use an analogy may help clarify some of what I mean. Suppose you took your car to the motor mechanic because it had a few problems, after payment and collection you discovered that it had more problems than it had originally. Suppose again, you were having a few personal problems, anxiety, depression or whatever so you decided to see a therapist. After a few paying visits you really feel no better about yourself, in fact, you feel worse. Upon telling your friend about your visits he says, oh, don’t worry I’ll tell you about someone that I know and if you don’t like them you can just ‘shop around’ until you do find someone you like. Due to your feelings of perhaps being more vulnerable and unsure your ‘shopping expedition’ leaves you more shattered than ever, each one seems to have a different interpretation and puts various labels on you until you feel you have almost no redeeming features at all. Realising, that therapists and others probably see no real problem here, this person has just not found a suitable match for themselves or something. Just for a moment, try being on the receiving end of this, at a time when you feel most vulnerable, something I’m sure they do not take very seriously otherwise why talk as if the matter is as simple as ‘shopping around’ for a new purchase .and returning it if it doesn’t suit. What I find so strange about this scenario is that the car would not even get past first base. If someone said about the car like it seems that is casually said about peoples minds they would possibly been seen as an idiot. I mean, most owners of the car would probably be irate, take the car directly back to whoever was responsible for the problem, asked that it be fixed or perhaps get their money back. That the car is shown to be more worthy of a sense of concern and injustice that is immediately acted upon is to me an indication of our strange values. Surely our minds, the very force behind everything we do and create for ourselves should be shown just a little more respect especially when a person is in a vulnerable and indecisive state.

I am not suggesting that people literally get their money back or be ‘fixed’ .by the ‘therapists’ I am just trying to express how sometimes issues of importance can be trivialised seemingly unnoticed, while others have an unjustified worthiness that can cloud what is transpiring, allowing detrimental ways of thinking to continue unquestioned, that in principle (assuming there is one) might be challenged if honestly reflected upon

.

I am also quite curious about how changes in theoretical perspectives seem to alter the way in which therapists and everyday people view each other. One example I have come across quite a bit is that of a ‘victim’ It seems that simultaneously there are theories both validating and invalidating ‘being a victim’ depending on where you look, it appears that some theories ‘validating a victim’ have completely gone overboard, while there is the trend that seems to criticise and almost morally condemns ‘being the victim’ in all it’s forms, while exhorting people to be responsible and ‘take responsibility’ for just about everything, creating perhaps a sense of inadequacy and a straitjacketing of feelings, this is just the flip side of being a ‘validated victim’ It may indicate how creating theories and viewing people through them can lead to distortion on behalf of the therapist. Their clients may not actually see themselves as a victim in the way it is portrayed by theories at any given time but because of their need to understand their situation, may take on board on the surface or may take to heart literally what the therapist said to them without it really reflecting their true position. The ironic result is that both sides of the ‘victim’ dispute have magically negated people’s true distress because it has really ended up being a phoney game of creating and dismantling theories at the expense of real people, many of whom, are still waiting to be understood on their terms. From what I understand of people if they feel mistreated, injustices done, etc, there seems to be a pretty simple and ‘commonsense’ understanding of their reactions - hurt, betrayal, distress and perhaps even to feel a victim but not really a victim as portrayed by theories but experienced as a personal and subjective inner feeling that may or may not be justified but nonetheless treated with respect and care according to the reaction of the person involved.

I have to admit that I have only become aware of this ‘validated victim’ position though my reading. My personal experiences have been along the lines of, not really been heard and having some deficient label stuck on me. I was given the impression that the fault lay within me and due to my deficiencies I was unable to adapt to circumstances, therefore to entertain the idea of being a ‘victim’ was certainly not on their agenda. I think this is why I find the whole matter so perplexing. I have come to know some of the extremes of the ‘validated victim’ theories and quite frankly I am angry that not only has it contributed to so much confusion but has done a great disservice to many people and yes, I will actually include myself, who have constantly had to endue the baloney of, what amounts to, a ‘no victim policy’ which has always existed as far as I know. Not that I ever wanted to be a ‘victim’ I just wanted some kind of genuine acknowledgement of ‘my perspective’, besides, I think the word ‘victim’ has become so over used and misrepresented as to render it quite useless in defining and truly reflecting what people really mean if they say they feel a ‘victim’. It actually irks me to hear or write it. Due to the indulgence and self interest of these therapists and in turn many of their clients (led up the garden path or not), they have made the situation even more untenable, as the backlash against them not only condemns their excesses, thus, producing even more ridiculous theories, which then further alienates the genuine people who feel they never had a ‘fair hearing’ in the first place. What’s more, even if they could, I don’t think there would be many of these people who would want to have their ‘fair hearing’ in a ‘therapists court’ and be judged by their capricious theories anyway. Pity the current people who are not conversant and don’t realise what their getting into.

I feel one example of this ‘validated victim’ going overboard is repressed memory/ false memory syndrome. What appears to have occurred were theories being created and people basically being manipulated to fit these theories. Once again, the consequences were the person’s real position in the matter was never really addressed. Assuming that there was sexual abuse of some kind, even worse if there was not, due to the therapists distorted framework the exaggeration and implication of perhaps innocent people, created far more problems and left nobody’s ‘mental health’ intact. I guess the sad part about this, apart from the people directly involved, are subsequent people who possibly had a hard time convincing others of sexual abuse they may have suffered in an atmosphere that was always fraught with suspicion and high emotions that probably has become even more so now. I recently read an article criticising certain social workers who apparently are quite adamant that ‘children don’t lie about sexual abuse’ In my opinion, these social workers, are another example of the type of people who make it very difficult for others by creating the kind of backlash situation mentioned above.

I may be completely wrong and letting my imagination run away with me but it occurred to me while writing this, as having recalled a cliché that appears to be used quite frequently and has often puzzled me. There are a number of ways it is expressed, the main one being - something or somebody can only hurt/affect you, if you ‘allow’ it and if it has affected you, then you have ‘chosen’ to do so and therefore, only have yourself to blame. Even though this type of thinking probably has been around in various forms for a long time, Could this current form possibly have arisen as a result of the criticism against the destructive and over zealous victim defenders? As much as I see this cognitive trick being sort of helpful in a very limited way and possibly only for certain people in certain situations. I see it as being much more insidious than anything else. The reason being, what a fortuitous invitation and justification for those who appear to enjoy playing nasty little games with other people’s feelings, then transfer their own guilt by blaming the other person., Doing what probably has always been done, there is now this perfect, sanctioned alibi with the bonus gift of minimal guilt, if any. After all, the other person is responsible if they are offended. I have personally encountered some of these ‘nasty little games’ and seen it done to others and some of the comebacks ironically run along much the same lines as the cliché, someone on the receiving end may hear things such as, you should have known, you allowed it to happen when it was really the other person’s fault, or, you can’t take a joke, when it really was some vindictive innuendo, if you take it that way, then that’s your problem, I guess the point I am making, if I understand this correctly and perhaps rather cynically, that in order to live by this dictum, is one really suppose to zip their mouth and chant to oneself ‘these things only affect me if I allow it’ and if I am affected, I have chosen to do so and must take responsibility, as there is no one to blame but myself.? Is this for real! This may pan out in some ivory tower world but not in the complex and practical world where many people often have very difficult lives with those around them, no matter what they seem to do, it’s a joke and an insult. This reminds me in some ways of the Christian religion and why perhaps, for one reason among many, it became unpopular. People in the past began to tire of the unrealistic platitudes that were fed to them, which to me, were basically designed to keep them uncomplaining and focused on what served the church’s best interests. I am unsure but I surmise, at some stage in history when these platitudes first appeared, one’s such as, ‘it is God’s will’ or ‘who are we to question God’s will’ etc, originally, people were expressing a genuine and heartfelt desire to have some kind of an answer, when they really had none and to comfort those who were suffering. Unfortunately, the fate for many clichés appears to be, degeneration into brush off’s designed to shut people up rather than serving as a genuine token of empathy, regardless of what kind of unfortunate circumstances has befallen them. This, perhaps in turn, making many people bitter and angry as they cannot express what they really feel due to the tyrannical power of these clichés. I have heard some of the more modern one’s, such as the above, where once again, they probably start off having good and sincere intentions but then degenerate into the same heartless brush offs that take no account of circumstances and I have heard people say such things as ‘get a life’, ‘get over it’, etc in the crudest and nastiest manner. Personally, I don’t really understand why this happens and feel it to be very unfortunate, as all it seems to do, is alienate people.

Going back to the topic of ‘sexual abuse’ (another much maligned word) my own experience was ignored, over time I made my own peace. My conclusions about it don’t seem to be reflected in anything I have read. How I see it, I was 12 yrs the man was about 60 Even though I was physically mature, sort of, psychologically I was still pretty much a child, I was taken in by naivety, trust and the fact that I had known him for many years. After a number of visits he did something that worried me so much, I left his house and never returned. Even though what he did was sexual, at the time I never really thought about it in those terms and it never occurred to me that he was what people refer to as a ‘sexual predator’ or whatever you want to call it. The experience confused me and I knew it was ‘wrong’ on some level, enough not to tell anybody so I just tried to put it out of my mind and forget it. The trouble was, not until I was in year 2 at high school did the guilt start setting in. It was at this time that the girls at school talked about boyfriends and there was more sexual awareness. My mother said I was too young to have boyfriends and if and when I did they had to be around my age, someone who was 16 or older was completely out of the question. All these ‘social rules’ and expectations was the thing that really brought me unstuck. In my mind I felt almost like a ‘social criminal’. Here I was, not supposed to even have a boyfriend and certainly not sex, but I have already done all these things with a man (certainly not a boyfriend) old enough to be my Grandfather! In my heart I believe that sexual relations between child and adult in itself and seen in the context of a ‘vacuum’ situation is possibly not the main focus of distress for many people. If, like myself the social world in which you live is the thing that really bears down heavily upon and judges you..

I would really like to understand the following better, it is pretty much a combination of what I have said thus far but it has quite a few more sharp bends that I have trouble negotiating and can’t seem to get my mind around without running of into a ditch, so if it seems a little confused and I’ve perhaps gone about it the long way or around in circles, that’s because I know the destination I want to get to, but for me, the road is not easy and I don’t really know how to get there.

From my perspective, in the main, when people experience difficulties in their lives they both try and sort it out for themselves or with the help of family, friends etc. How they understand their problems at this stage, generally, is in a ‘commonsense’ uncomplicated way and most of time are able to muddle their way through unless it becomes so difficult they either seek ‘help’ themselves or are encouraged to by others. The kind of help that is sought will dictate the framework by which a persons difficulties are understood. Due to the range of apparent ‘frameworks’ that are available, it seems perhaps this is where the fundamental cause of so much confusion lies,

I think the average person has a bit of a tendency to see all therapists as one and the same. Even though they may acknowledge to varying degrees the differences, they are viewed basically as someone you go to, to talk about your problems. They may also have the idea that no matter who they go to they will be understood the way they understand their problem and perhaps the circumstances that may have caused it. These assumptions can be a grave mistake

.

If for instance, someone happens to see a therapist who has a biological approach, it may be said or implied that they have chemical imbalances, defective genes etc and quite possibly be prescribed medication. Due to many people not having any real understanding of the knowledge or perspective of the ‘therapist’, the status of ‘professional’ is relied upon to be informed accurately. How someone perceives what is ‘meant’ by ‘chemical imbalances’ etc and how it relates to their problem depends very much on whether they are aware of the ambiguous nature of these theories There could be many different reactions from people at this stage, depending on this awareness, some may dismiss it out of hand, others may hesitatingly agree to some extent and still others may completely embrace the idea. Possibly, no matter where you stand between the two extremes, the perspective on the ‘problem’ has been altered. This change in understanding and depending what attitude a person now holds may lead to an opening up of a new can of worms. These ‘chemical imbalance’ etc explanations could give a sense of relief and the needed confidence to untangle themselves from their ‘problem’, this in itself is useful. The trouble is though, despite the use of medication, etc people’s problems don’t magically disappear, what may then occur, is a seemingly ‘easy excuse’ becoming available as a by-product of these theories. For some people it may be stated in an overtly matter of fact way (this attitude probably being the most irritating to others) as the reason for why they are the way they are and they truly believe it, many more perhaps, are ambivalent and/or the implications of these theories pretty much goes right over their heads and in many ways, does not really ‘touch’ them but nonetheless they may still follow the logical path that these explanations take them down. It often just simply boils down to, how distressing their problems are and clutching onto something that has been accepted in good faith by them from the ‘experts’; which appears to give some hope about their circumstances, as many people, simply just can’t ‘will’ themselves out of their difficulties.

If someone is told their problems are due to ‘chemical imbalances’ or ‘defective genes’, etc, taken at face value, this seems to imply that the resulting ‘behavioural dysfunction’ is beyond their control as it is due to supposedly definite physiological ‘abnormalities’. So, when someone takes their medication or has behaviour modification or whatever and their problems don’t seem to improve much, in theory, can they really be blamed if they assume it’s their faulty chemicals or defective genes, etc? Despite this appearing to be the logical conclusion, it is a conclusion that is hard to acknowledge as it is clandestinely rejected and denied It’s like, well…, its quite acceptable to put forward theories of ‘chemical imbalances’, ‘defective genes’ etc but we don’t really… want people thinking and acting in accordance with the logical repercussion of these theories. I have a sneaking suspicion of one possible explanation for this, to appease the strange and stubborn belief that seems to be held by many people (possibly, including some of the very people who put forward all these theories) that somehow, nothing should prevent a person (usually others, not necessarily oneself) to call upon their free will to transcend any circumstances, in some cases, no matter how boxed in by deterministic ideas, pull themselves up by their bootstraps and appear unaffected and ‘OK’ effectively, being unable to admit that, to be human is, in many ways, to be fallible, at least for some of us and just to prove they also, can be really quite fallible, they, by their very own contradictions, want to have their cake and eat it too.

In some instances, a similar sort of thing seems to occur other theories as well, where by it is put forth, all these dire consequences of what can happen after certain ‘traumas’ such as, child abuse, rape etc, etc. There seems to be a number of attitudes in relation to this, some therapists play it for all it’s worth, others will have a contradictory stance, whereby they will pretty much adhere to the theory and then in the same breath do a ‘strange and stubborn’ belief stunt and there are others who will follow the line of the ‘no victim policy’. Your feelings may actually reflect to some degree the theory.(not necessarily the dire consequences extremes) assuming a therapist is seen at all, you would have to be pretty fortunate to find one who genuinely respects your situation .regardless of the theories, (rare as finding a needle in a haystack if you ask me), practically speaking, it’s pretty much a ‘lucky dip’, for the average person who they get If you happen to unwittingly toddle off to a therapist who has taken on what I consider (I could be wrong), the seemingly more widespread attitude of a ‘no victim policy’, your genuine feelings of ‘being a victim’,( I wish there was another word for it!) will probably not be acknowledged The fact that you have picked the ‘wrong one’ highlights the absurdity of the lack of any genuine consensus and intelligent understanding in a field that can potentially have so much impact on people’s lives. I have to make it clear that I am certainly not saying that there should be an all encompassing theory for each type of "problem’, this would be even more tyrannical. I just wish they weren’t so blinkered by their own theoretical lenses. It probably is naïve of me but why can’t it be more spontaneous, in the sense that, on a very basic level, if someone presents with a difficulty and they are affected a lot by it, then that should be respected, if not much affected then that too should be respected. I don’t think it should be arbitrarily decided that someone should or shouldn’t feel a certain way or that they should be coerced by deficient labelling or by subtle or not so subtle innuendos that they are being unreasonable if they don’t take on board what the therapist decides is the ‘right’ view.

As stated earlier, I honestly believe that peoples reactions in these types of circumstances are usually felt as a subjective inner feeling and in the privacy of the experience are not aware nor subject to capricious theories that decides whether or not it acknowledges those feelings. At least, not until, they make the mistake of having ‘therapy’.

Regardless to what extent, by embracing the idea their problems are due to ‘chemical imbalances’ or basically any of the theoretical frameworks, they possibly have, unwittingly set themselves up for criticism from all fronts. This can come from those closest to the person, from people in general, to the mental health industry itself. It mainly has to do with the highly manipulative and conscience provoking word, ‘responsibility’, This is where it gets real messy as there appears to be so many angles and motives where people come from in their judgement of how responsible they and others are for the circumstances they find themselves in. It seems that at one extreme there is the opinion that nothing is excusable and people are accountable and responsible for doing the ‘right’ thing and only have themselves to blame if things go wrong (or right), this attitude seems to be related to the ‘strange and stubborn’ belief mentioned above. At the other end there are all sorts of reasons and ‘excuses’ as to why people do the things they do and then there is everything in between As to what is the ‘right’ or fairest attitude to have in regards to this, it would seem an open arena for everyone to put their tuppence worth in.

By incorporating (such as the above) what are really ‘moral judgements’, therefore ‘opinions’ into ‘official theories’ that are then ‘preached’ to clients as some kind of ‘exalted truth’, in turn, making whatever ‘that truth’ the currently fashionable yardstick by which to judge all in sundry and then to later, or simultaneously from whatever source, sanction another ‘truth’ that may very well appear to be the opposite. To me, this is what causes so much trouble. Moral judgements that have been sanctioned by the ‘mental health industry’ have assumed a much greater authority and influence than is justified, so depending on the ‘truth’ that is fashionable at the time when a person seeks ‘help’ they will be ‘judged’ and ‘treated’ accordingly, regardless of whether it accurately reflects their real situation. This makes it so much more difficult for the person being ‘treated’ to hold on to their own genuine feelings, which maybe quite at odds with what is being said to them, it also has the consequence, whatever the judgement placed upon them, that much more harder to shake off.

I can’t help but keep coming back to the same thing, by not reflecting the true position of the person, many detrimental consequences can ensue. One rather sad manifestation of this are some people who may or may not have been a part of the ‘mental health industry’ who have gone on to critique it’s practices with the end result of not only condemning the industry but also the recipients. I have no misapprehensions that there are a certain amount of people who play the therapeutic game for all its worth and it would probably be quite justifiable calling them manipulators. This really should not detract from genuine people who seek ‘help’ for legitimate reasons The mental health industry could argue that they too are, in the main, genuine and it is just an inevitable fact of life there will be a few bad apples, just as in any other profession. I feel that, on a superficial level this is somewhat true, although I cannot agree that they are just like any other profession, in the sense that, much more can be at stake for recipients sincerely affected by the negligent practices of their industry.

I guess the best way to describe how I see what may be occurring is like, the evolution of gossip. An unfortunate incident occurs in someone’s life, the event circulates to all ears that will listen, soon enough, distortion infiltrates into the describing of what occurred, this may continue until it hardly bears any resemblance to the actual incident. Meanwhile, and not unusually in the tone of criticism, judgements are being levelled at the person in question based on, what is now, misinformation, therefore the conclusions, judgements, etc about that person have hardly any legitimate basis in reality. The situation could be simply cleared up by asking the person, what is the truth of the matter. This seldom occurs as gossip spreads far and wide and probably only those directly involved with that person will know of a more accurate truth. For their own sense of integrity, they would dearly like to clear the air but know it is not really possible.

The reason I feel these critics are sometimes unhelpful and their stance is related, in a kind of a way, to the gossip scenario is because they seem to criticise on the basis of the outcome of assumptions that are themselves not taken into consideration as being what maybe, is the real problem. The following are possible factors that may lead to misplaced criticism:-

For the above possible reasons and probably more, I feel in many ways, the dilemma is, how do you go about getting a fair and accurate view of a situation that appears to have many varied determining factors, and dependent on which one(‘s) are given precedence or omitted, may possibly lead to conclusions that are unwittingly detrimental to the original purpose. Instead of condemning the recipients, apart from where it is justified, the focus should be more on doing a calculated dismantling of the theories by which they have come to be understood and just as with gossip, how they have come to be understood and the criticisms and judgements levelled at them may actually have no legitimate basis in reality. If my own experiences are anything to go by, I can honestly say that, not once, did I ever feel a sense of genuine understanding It seemed always the case, of them jumping in, often only knowing me for less than an hour with their preconceived ideas about, what was ‘wrong’ with me. Again, the comparison with gossip,

had they really asked me and listened to what I had to say instead of, what I consider, the misinformation that was their preconceived ideas, a more accurate truth would have presented itself.

When all is said and done and the dust has settled, it seems rather funny in an ironic but very ha! ha! kind of a way, despite the mountains of knowledge on the psychology of humans, I get the sense, no matter how educated/uneducated the people, how modern/ancient the times, there is this underlying expectation that people should, though it be pretty much impossible, imitate and reflect the highest ideal of what is imagined as the ‘good’, the ‘responsible’ and the ‘right’ way to live our lives and when we see, particularly others, failing to measure up, despite all the failings within ourselves, there is this tendency, figuratively speaking, to go for the jugular. Perhaps if we could just relax and be more honest with ourselves and others about our less than perfect selves, there would be far less friction, more genuine acceptance and openness to ‘improve’ ourselves without the atmosphere of hostility and manipulation A ridiculous ideal, I know, but it would be rather nice for a change.

cathywilmot@hotmail.com

Back to:-
Guest essays
Homepage

I