In 1973, seven people attended various psychiatric hospitals and “faked” symptoms of mental distress. They hadn’t experienced mental health problems before and not one of the hospitals saw through the non-existent symptoms. This led the organiser of this experiment, David Rosenhan, to write the groundbreaking article, On Being Sane in Insane Places. Rosenhan concluded, It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals.
The BBC programme Horizon has a two-parter called How Mad Are You? Ten people from different backgrounds are thrown together. Five of these people have experienced mental health problems, the other five haven’t. They are given tests and experiments. Watched on video by 3 of the finest shrinkologists. These panel of ‘experts’ have to guess which 5 are ‘normal’ and which 5 have experienced mental distress. Simple? Examining the so-called thin line between madness and sanity or how the programme liked to pose it, when do ‘character traits become mental illness’?
The five tasks given include stand-up comedy, problem solving, physical task that meant clearing cow crap, how the subjects view themselves and team work/leadership task. These tasks would help the shrinks study the behaviour of the participants and tease out displays of various symptoms i.e. clearing up cow crap would have a significant impact on the person experiencing OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder), problem solving would have an impact on someone experiencing schizophrenia and bi-polar. Stand-up comedy routine would affect someone experiencing social anxiety. Think you get the picture.
The shrinks were observing the behaviour (and most of them were displaying symptoms of nervousness) and whether it fulfilled certain criteria that led to a label being applied. Psychiatry likes to classify and measure. We were offered symptoms of depression, descriptions that included ‘profound joylessness’. Bourgeois interpretations of certain behaviour dictated by the bibilical wonders of the DSM. Language used by the shrinks was clinical and detached. You could analyse their behaviour and turn the psych tables on them. They had a mystery to solve by using the processes of scientific scrutiny. Who is the depressive? Who is the OCD? Who is anorexic, Who is anxious? Who is the schizophrenic.
Guess what…..the shrinks got the guy (Dan) who had OCD but the person (Yasmin) they were utterly utterly convinced had not experienced mental health problems…..they got it wrong. The look on their collective faces said it all. The second-part is next wk and more separation of the ‘mad’ from the ’sane’.
But this is the crux of psychiatry and shrinks, they observe. They don’t delve deeper, they are superficial in their analysis and they rely on measuring behaviour. Basic criteria and symptoms that will eventually box people into a label. And even then that can change. Psychiatry doesn’t have the ability to look beyond the label. See the whole person and not just a bundle of symptoms. Sometimes having a diagnosis can give clarity and be able to put your finger on it, give it meaning. But the problem with labels they are inflexible and fixed.
Why did the shrinks get it so wrong with Yasmin? Yasmin came across as a strong, determined woman. Organised, practical and funny. She didn’t display the stereotypical symptoms of mental distress. She came across as a complex human being who can’t be reduced to a series of traits and behaviour. But that the thing with shrinks they trained to think that way and to spot the symptoms. And no surprise they get it so wrong. It is reductionist and based on conformity. While Dan is open about his OCD and wanted to be show other people who experience OCD that there is hope.
As I said people are more complex and complicated. Behaviour, feelings and thoughts are interlinked, experiences shape us, influences whether biological, environmental and societal. You could say it is dialectical. Thinking you can simply determine behaviour by listening for certain traits and concluding on a label is about as scientific as picking a diagnosis out of a hat.
Also, just because you seem strong, confident and happy doesn’t signify that you are ‘normal’. What is normality? Experience as well teaches you many things,so does life, and how to come to terms with mental distress. Just because you have experience mental distress doesn’t mean you should be reduced to labels and symptoms. Life can suck and that affects people in different ways. Mental distress is portrayed as something out there, something so extreme. Instead of being viewed as a way of coping and dealing with this fucked up world. When you experience mental distress it’s like you are being punished for being…distressed. Then we are reduced to a set of symptoms as opposed to looking at our whole being and that includes material experiences.
I will be very fascinated if the shrinks get it right next week. And frankly, I was impressed by how refreshing, positive and insightful Dan and Yasmin were. The programme still has elements of the ‘mad, bad and dangerous to know’ (and one review I read was utterly ghastly in what it said). We need to break down those stereotypes and labels.
Posted by harpymarx 
