Psychiatry and religion - two peas from the same evil pod
Submitted by Graeme on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 5:13pm[Disclaimer: this is not intended to denigrate anyone who belongs to a religious faith or engages in other spiritual practices].
As near as I can tell psychiatrists are the high priests of the new religious order. The language they use may differ but when it comes down to where the cheese binds, psychiatry's attitudes, superstitions and social control function are not significantly different from those of the medieval-era Church.
Both institutions serve(d) as extra-legal parallel enforcement units meant to deal with behaviors, beliefs and worldviews that, while not considered 'criminal', were nonetheless felt to be unacceptable within the existing social order, or were at least bothersome to others.
The existence of 'God' (in the externalized, patriarchal, authoritarian sense that seems to serve as the dominant portrayal of the Divine) has never been substantiated. Neither has the existence of 'mental illness'. As far as I'm concerned both these notions are based on delusional beliefs and have served a virtually identical social restraining function.
Have you ever noticed how the DSM has evolved not in accordance with any form of advancing knowledge, but rather to adjust itself to shifting social mores? New additions to this oversized and essentially useless tome aren't based upon research or discovery, but are voted upon by a committee.
While the Bible (and other sacred texts) has not been subject to similar rewrites, its interpretation has shifted - sometimes dramatically - over the years in accordance with evolving social values. That's why the Fundamentalist types never seem to lack for a pretext for trying to bully the masses into accepting whatever twisted beliefs they are preaching at the time.
To give one example, homosexuality was removed from the DSM in the 1970's when the gay community ferociously rejected the disease-based worldview about who and what they are, but it has been subsequently replaced with a number of other 'politically correct' designations under the heading of 'gender identity disorders' or gender dysphoria'. What it boils down to is that pseudo-medical language is still being used to justify homophobia.
And while public expression of outright religious intolerance for gays has been relegated to a small cadre of extremists (Like this Freddie Phelps creature from Kansas), the hardcore Christians have been working diligently behind the political scenes (mainly at the state and local level) to undermine the hard-won gains of the past three decades or so.
As an example I cite 'Proposition Eight' in California which was recently endorsed by a narrow majority of voters along with a number of similar repressive state initiatives that somehow found their way onto the ballot during the recent election.
Barack Obama's apparent support for such initiatives are but one reason why I remain highly skeptical about this guy - but I guess only time will tell for sure.
Living a principled life does not require belief in a deity - or for that matter, accepting a shrink's label and the Rx that inevitably goes with it. That's my bottom line on this whole question.
What it boils down to is
What it boils down to is that pseudo-medical language is still being used to justify homophobia.
While that may be true, psychiatry usually follows the lead of the psychological community and suggests that sexuality cannot change or be altered.
I don't particularly like anyone in the psychiatry or psychological community telling me how I should approach my sexuality or how I should live my life. If change is what I want, then they should be helpful and not try to push me in a particular direction. Needless to say it's not a subject I discuss in such circles anymore in regards to treatment.
Otherwise I think you are spot on about psychiatry being vulnerable to dogma of sorts, as religion often can be.