"PSYCHIATRY SHOOTS ITSELF IN THE FOOT?"
by Peter Morrell

"Psychiatry shoots itself in the foot?"

[March 2001]

Even though they are not stated too forcefully, or in the starkest,
black-and-white terms, nevertheless, it seems pretty clear that either
the reviewer [1], or the book [or possibly both] rest their ideas upon
a raft of prejudicial assumptions, stereotypes, simplistic distortions
and ideas of dubious worth about religious cults. Re-formulating these
assumptions into the form of questions, readers should ask themselves
more deeply about this whole matter.

It seems only fair to ask whether madness really is an illness or even
if it exists as a separate state. Thomas Szasz [2] and R D Laing [3]
have, amongst others, questioned whether certain mental states are
real illnesses - an assumption underpinning the entire psychiatric
domain. When Turner says, "the strong influence of genetics in its
aetiology,"[1] this neatly side-steps the wider question of whether
schizophrenia, so-called, is a real thing at all. Should we
automatically assume that those charismatic figures 'in charge' of
cults are mad? Or that they are schizophrenic? How is this to be
proven? Is it not simply unmitigated speculation that damages the
credibility of the entire psychiatric field?

Comparing religion and psychiatry can be taken many ways. For example,
in Christianity, all people are seen as sinners and thus, in a certain
sense, we are all 'sick'. Likewise, in Buddhism, the notion persists
that we are all subject to hatred, desire and delusion - the 'three
poisons' - and thus we all dwell in an impure state. There are some
parallels between psychiatry and religions.

Yet, to say of religious leaders that "...most of them suffered from a
form of schizotypal personality disorder..." [1], well, this seems a
wee bit excessive. While few would doubt that in popular culture there
is conceived to be only a fine dividing line between genius and
madness, nevertheless, to idly accuse Shakespeare of being little more
than a pot smoker [4] or to 'write off' inspired figures like Joan of
Arc, William Blake, Madame Blavatsky or Rajneesh as mad or
schizophrenic, seems to be to jettison all sober sense of balance. Why
not go the whole hog and place Leonardo, Van Gogh, Michelangelo,
Mozart and every great artist, composer and writer of all time into
the same pot? Is it not completely absurd to contend that anyone
'charismatic' or 'creative' is abnormal and 'schizotypal' and thus in
need of 'treatment'?

Given the sheer diversity of human minds, then if psychiatry is about
finding abnormal minds and 'making them normal' - an arbitrary and ill-
defined and normative goal - then it is hardly surprising it takes
such a narrow view of truly inspired [and inspiring] people.
'Normality' can never be absolute, because it is inevitably subject to
fluid social, racial, financial, political, historical and sexual
variables beyond anyone's control. Indeed, psychiatry itself might be
viewed solely as a normative political and social weapon to control
creative deviance.

Is this not a case of psychiatry shooting itself mightily in the foot
and bringing itself into disrepute? How does this book/review further
the cause of psychiatry beyond portraying it as a very amateur field
of unrestrained speculation, rather than a rational academic
discipline? It even adds some substance to the popular myth that
psychiatrists are just about as mad as their patients. Or even madder.
Such are the impressions one inevitably forms from reading this type
of material.

Helena Blavatsky [1831-91] was a cult figure and so was David Koresh
[1959-1993], yet, as Blavatsky never killed anyone, should she be
tarred with the same brush?. Why should the characteristics of one
category be automatically transferred onto the other? Was David Koresh
himself mad? Who is to say with complete certainty what really
happened in the Waco camp in 1993, anyway? [5] While Blavatsky
probably did appear a little crazy, yet she was highly influential and
her teachings, as far as I know, were harmless. It is hard to see how
much of her supposed 'strangeness' was acted up for the media and how
much was real. People believe what they want to believe - so be it.
Are psychiatrists soon going to encroach upon that too?

Certainly, there are those who will advise others about their life and
spirituality and certainly there are those who wish to gather around
such people. These are facts of life and always have been. This book/
review would deny people the right to say how they see this world, to
expound upon their ideas or to offer guidance to others - unless you
are a psychiatrist. And that to do so always borders on the unethical
and the abusive. Is such an assumption valid? It also seems to suggest
that those weak or disillusioned people [?] who seek such guidance
should be strongly discouraged from doing so. Are psychiatrists any
better suited to help such people? If so, then how and why? It comes
very close to denouncing all cults as useless and/or harmful. Is this
sound and sober advice?

In the Buddhist view that life is permeated by suffering, and in the
Christian view of suffering, sin and forgiveness, there resides,
through study and reflection, a chance for people to gain solace from
those episodes of loss and grief that periodically we must all suffer,
and to make meaning where there was a lack of meaning. Can the mass of
conflicting and changing theories of psychiatry [as it appears] be
compared favourably to, or even replace, religion?

Charismatic people have existed down the ages, and have always
attracted followers. Examples include Jesus Christ, Buddha, Confucius,
Socrates, Plato, Guru Nanak, Mohammed. Does this book/review
demonstrate that this is wrong and always harmful, and that no good
can ever come from this? Does it conclusively demonstrate, in an
evidence-based manner, that the followers are all fools who have not
improved their lives by following
such teachers? Or, that they were all duped? Does not this very idea
pander to many prejudicial assumptions about the nature of religion,
self-improvement and New-Agers? Assumptions that might not be borne
out in reality, but which chiefly exist in the minds of those who seek
to condemn such aspects of human life at every turn.

Do psychiatrists have any valid business in judging this entire field
of religious cults? Given that [mostly] weak, disillusioned and
unhappy people [and the curious] will naturally seek happiness and
enlightenment - a greater sense of meaning and coherence in their
lives - to which no shame attaches; and given that there are always
some 'realised masters' out there who can help such people; then, in
what sense, in any free society, does this inspire condemnation?
Should these people seek spiritual counselling with psychiatrists
instead? Then, if so, why? These are fair questions. Does it not
denote a form of professional jealousy between these two fields? As if
occupational encroachment has arisen and rivalry takes place where
religious cults and psychiatry converge. Maybe that is the real basis
for such books and such reviews.

"Rajneesh obtained a masters degree in philosophy from the University
of Saugar. He taught philosophy at the University of Jabalpur for nine
years and concurrently worked as a religious leader...he taught a
syncretistic spiritual path that combined elements from Hinduism,
Jainism, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, ancient Greek philosophy,
many other religious and philosophic traditions, humanistic
psychology, new forms of therapy and meditation, etc. " [6]

As pointed out above, Rajneesh was previously a professor of
philosophy and comparative religion at an Indian university, and then
became a 'realised master' in the sense that he could spontaneously
expound coherently and at length about any religion on earth. Very
engaging, warm, amusing and rational teachings about all religions,
poured out of him day and night to students who taped and wrote down
his words. These became his many books. Having read some of these
books, I can confirm their value as being very readable, very learned
and very useful for the 'spiritual seeker'. How on earth does that
make him a David Koresh or a Blavatsky?

I would therefore provisionally conclude that he was genuine and a
highly popular and compassionate person who did not abuse the
affection of his many followers. That he later collected Rolls-Royces
and encouraged free sex with his followers might or might not be held
against him. It could be interpreted as a religious joke about the
fatuous nature of western indulgence and materialism. However, to
clump him with these others, and write him off as schizophrenic is not
really credible.

Religious cults seem to perform a useful social function;
psychiatrists likewise. To what extent their interests overlap is
debatable. The aims of each seem very different and the methods used
also. That they both concern the improvement of human happiness and
self-contentment is manifest, yet one finds it hard to imagine many
psychiatrists being showered with gifts of several hundred Rolls-
Royces for the enlightenment they have bestowed upon their
appreciative clients. The guru-disciple relationship is similar to the
psychiatrist-patient relationship, but that of the guru is rooted in a
selfless and generous love, while that of the psychiatrist in a
detached compassion dominated mostly by professional distance. I
accept that both are liable to be abused by disreputable people.

The key question I think psychiatrists should ask themselves is why so
many "seeker's" vastly prefer visiting a guru than visiting a
'shrink'. Prolonged contemplation of that question could lead them to
greater understanding, and might generate more insight than the
negligible social study of religious cults which informed this book/
review - a dimension that could have helped this book/review to avoid
some of its most glaring conceptual inadequacies.

Sources

[1] Prophets, Cults and Madness, Anthony Stevens and John Price, book
reviewed by Trevor

Turner, BMJ 2001; 322: 680 [17 March]

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7287/680/a

[2] http://www.enabling.org/ia/szasz/manifesto.htm

[3] http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5214/laing.html

[4] BBC Homepage, Thursday, 1 March, 2001, Bard 'used drugs for
inspiration',

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_1195000/1195939.stm

[5] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/davidkoresh.html

[6] http://www.religioustolerance.org/rajneesh.htm

Homeopathe International