Ksenia
Фея
Интересный подход к психиатрии с позиции постмодернисткой философии.
Цитата:
Цитата:
Michael Walker examines the social construction of mental illness and its implications for the recovery model. He is critical of the user becoming defined by the definer, such as if you go for behavioural therapy you come out with a perspective of rewards and punishments etc.:
"Psychology, like psychiatry, has found ways of linguistically contorting, convoluting, and confusing lived experience with essential “truths” of its own. Bill O'Hanlon, a preeminent postmodern consultant and author, uses his holiday cookie making experience to communicate what happens in the therapy room (O'Hanlon and Wiener-Davis, 1989). A client's problem that s/he brings to therapy is like cookie dough. The experience of it is vague and malleable. Once the "blob" of cookie dough is forced through the cookie press (a tube, funnel, and mold pressed against a baking pan) it becomes a Christmas tree, star, or Santa Claus. Similarly, when a client exposes his or her problem to a therapist it gets "molded" or interpreted in the language of the therapist. So a client attending a psychodynamic therapy session would leave having unresolved childhood conflicts. The same client leaving a behaviorist's office would walk away with problem behavior shaped by reward and punishment. An interaction with a Jungian therapist would result in the need to deal with the various archetypes that apply to him or her. Talking with a diagnostically (and thereby pathologically) minded clinician will leave one with the idea that they “have” “bipolar disorder”, “depression”, “obsessive compulsive disorder”, a “mental illness” – along with all the stories that go with them (“chemical imbalances”, lifelong duration, the need to “comply” with a treatment regimen, etc.). Like cookies, continued exposure to the "heat" of the theoretical lens causes these interpretations to "harden" or "reify" (to make real)." O'Hanlon concludes that if our languaging creates “the problem” then why not leverage the use of language and create a problem that is easiest to solve.[7]
He is critical of a deficit based vocabulary:
"From the perspective of linguistics we see that the reified categories (e.g. mental illness, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) are abstractions defined by clusters of what we call “symptoms.” Schizophrenia is defined as the presence of audio hallucinations (or other “thought disorders”) in the absence of a “mood disorder.” You can even throw in other correlates like “negative symptoms”, PET scans, response to medications, etc. The issue of the DSM's poor reliability and validity aside (Caplan, 1995; Sparks, Duncan, & Miller, 2005), the term “schizophrenia” is a word used to communicate the presence of these “symptoms.” The various human manifestations of thought, feeling, and behavior (aka “symptoms”) exist like the chair you are sitting on as you read this exists. But the next level of abstraction, the word “schizophrenia”, and the next, “mental illness”, only exist through consensus and only persist by convention. Even if the correlations of defining symptoms was perfect (which it is far from), in light of the linguistic paradigm we have to ask ourselves whether using a pathologizing, deficit-based vocabulary is useful in helping people improve the quality of their lives."[7]

