Tina,

Thanks for your post, 
> Not just psychology either.  The western 'approach'
> to education seems to be
> about teaching others to label/group/classify in the
> textbook fashion.  Any
> leaps of imagination are curbed (until at least PhD
> level and sometimes even
> then) by asking for reference points 'where is your
> evidence?'  - and so the
> system supports and reinforces itself.
> 

I agree with this in many respects, but, on the other
hand, I've always liked science because in actual
practice it depends upon making endless precise
observations and distinctions. There is a way in which
in public education and perhaps in popular thinking
that science is connected with categorizing and
labelling, which is definitely an aspect of it, and
perhaps the emphasis is skewed that way in public
education. But that's probably no more than the way in
which poetry is taught in many classrooms, for
instance the ubiqutuous presence of Shel Silverstein
in elementary schools. And in the practice of science,
it seems to me that the emphasis upon evidence is
precisely so that the eye of the scientist is forever
drawn back to the facts and made to question whatever
assumption or hypothesis or overarching theory with
which she began. In those few scientists that I know
well, it seems to me that this capacity for making
intellectual distinctions which always lead to more
distinctions is combined with a kind of freeing of the
creative imagination. 

> I agree.  Success probably does most often come down
> to the sensitivity of
> the practitioner and the time that they have to
> spend with an individual.
> If I appeared totally 'anti' before it was because I
> was irritated by some
> of the comments posted to this thread.  I have,
> unfortunately, got many
> stories of people who have been let down by health
> professionals following a
> diagnosis of mental illness.  I am struggling to
> think of a single success.
> 
> I also have a fascination with the power structures
> that can lead to one
> person being totally disempowered by attaching a
> label to them.  When I was
> a student (many years ago now) a friend of mine was
> diagnosed as
> schizophrenic and this 'tag' seemed to me to be more
> destructive than the
> symptoms she had exhibited up to that point.  For
> one thing - all of the
> quirkiness that made her interesting was
> re-interpreted as signs of madness.
> 

Well, I found myself thinking afterwards that I hoped
I hadn't seemed 'anti-' therapy from the accounts of
the failed treatments of my brother and my uncle.
Since I do feel it can make a great difference, as it
has with my children and myself, individually and also
in our relationships with ourselves and others. I grew
up in a house where what I can only call a fear of
being labelled crazy, a fear of seeking help, a fear
of psychiatrists was instilled. Basically the dynamic
was that all sorts of injuries would occur, control
and manipulation, in which one would try and maintain
a sort of calm or quietly taking it, and then at a
point, after several months usually get upset, showing
some of the emotional consequences or responses that
had been buried,  at which point all of the attention
would be rivetted on the 'problem' of that person who
would be subjected to what was something like a
psychological assault of what was wrong with her or
him, the result of which was usually the person would
go from being upset to blowing up, which was taken as
evidence of the problem he or she had in the first
place. There was always a point at which the ultimate
threat was 'you're crazy and you need a shrink" or 'to
be committed.' This technique originated with my
father, for my mother was the first 'nutcase' and then
it went sort of down the line of the kids. So, really,
when my brother had a crisis, this was the view he had
of any help, which meant he postponed getting any help
or talking to anyone, and furthermore, he was mostly
looking for help from my family, these people who
still had the same views, for whom a dominating
concern was that no one should know (including me
until three days before his death because I would have
made 'trouble') and that help was a last, shameful,
resort, and who were so in denial that the slightest
improvement from the medication was taken as his being
'fine' enough to be left alone and with his guns. It's
very complicated, of course, as all such things are,
but the treatment he received was probably the least
of these failures of care. 

> label to them.  When I was
> a student (many years ago now) a friend of mine was
> diagnosed as
> schizophrenic and this 'tag' seemed to me to be more
> destructive than the
> symptoms she had exhibited up to that point.  For
> one thing - all of the
> quirkiness that made her interesting was
> re-interpreted as signs of madness.

Well, I had a friend a long time ago who was diagnosed
as schizophrenic. He'd been a child prodigy pianist,
playing for Bernstein when he was 15 and he had some
kind of breakdown that involved injuring his hands so
he couldn't play anymore. I knew his sister and at one
point in my younger day travels ended up staying at
his house. He and his wife had met while they were
both institutionalized, and had a baby, so his wife
had asked if I'd stay for a while and go to work for
her, she had this sort of part-time job in Denver,
while she planted her garden and took care of the
baby. Wayne was no help at all with the baby, he was
in some sort of limbo state, so if the baby cried, he
just stood there looking at him, at that point too, it
had been months since he had been able to talk to
anyone, in even the most minimal of monosyllabic ways.
It was odd, though, because after a few days, I found
myself having these odd dreams and talking with
Jennifer, his wife, about them, she laughed and said
they were like Wayne's dreams. And in some respects,
it was like a sort of participation mystique, a week
or so later when some friends came to visit, Wayne was
so freaked by the appearance of other people he went
out of the house. I found him in the backyard standing
under one of the flowering fruit trees, though,
truthfully, I had fled the house too, not my
characteristic response to the arrival of friends for
dinner! but it was as if I felt the terror he did. We
looked at each other for a few minutes, I remember
still thinking to him very clearly, strongly, as if it
were talking out loud that it was all right. And at
some point he picked one of the blossoms off the tree
and gave it to me and said it was edible; it was
apricot, I think, like eating fragrance itself. And
then he followed me back into the house and from that
point began talking, took up playing chess again. I
don't know exactly how to explain it, perhaps it was
just the real contact with another person where he
was, without all the alienating distance.  Ah, well,
but, yes, those ways of dismissing another out of
existence are various, and often subtle, for instance,
there was another occasion where someone sent me drops
from meadow blossoms as therapy for my feelings,
well-intentioned, I think, but it took me a long while
to admit to myself how it felt to be treated as one
might treat an ill-behaving horse, or the implicit
dismissal and control of those feelings. And apologies
if this is too long, or rambles, 

best,

Rebecca 

--- Tina Bass <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Rebecca,
> 
> I moved away from the computer for a short time and
> my inbox is overflowing
> so apologies if I am going over old ground here and
> for the brief response.
> I'm on catch-up and in the middle of a pile of work.
> 
> 
> >  I'd add though that the language of psychology
> has so
> > permeated the culture that people do this all the
> > time, diagnose others, attach labels and then read
> the
> > other's behavior through that particular lens.
> 
> Not just psychology either.  The western 'approach'
> to education seems to be
> about teaching others to label/group/classify in the
> textbook fashion.  Any
> leaps of imagination are curbed (until at least PhD
> level and sometimes even
> then) by asking for reference points 'where is your
> evidence?'  - and so the
> system supports and reinforces itself.
> 
> 
> > To be fair, I do think that therapy often helps,
> > particularly unconventional therapies like this
> > Narrative Therapy, though there are others, and
> even
> > conventional therapies can help depending upon the
> > practicioner.
> 
> I agree.  Success probably does most often come down
> to the sensitivity of
> the practitioner and the time that they have to
> spend with an individual.
> If I appeared totally 'anti' before it was because I
> was irritated by some
> of the comments posted to this thread.  I have,
> unfortunately, got many
> stories of people who have been let down by health
> professionals following a
> diagnosis of mental illness.  I am struggling to
> think of a single success.
> 
> I also have a fascination with the power structures
> that can lead to one
> person being totally disempowered by attaching a
> label to them.  When I was
> a student (many years ago now) a friend of mine was
> diagnosed as
> schizophrenic and this 'tag' seemed to me to be more
> destructive than the
> symptoms she had exhibited up to that point.  For
> one thing - all of the
> quirkiness that made her interesting was
> re-interpreted as signs of madness.
> 
> 
> > When therapy does help, it helps
> > precisely because the method grants the person the
> > validity of his or her own experience and
> perceptual
> > and emotional complexity, rather than imposing
> another
> > language or interpretative mode upon such a
> person,
> > which is, often, part of the trouble in the first
> > place,
> 
> Yes.  Looking back at my post, I'm sure I am as
> guilty of 'imposing' as
> anyone else.  Apologies to all for that.
> 
> And thank you for sharing your stories, Rebecca. 
> They have been very
> thought-provoking.
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com