‘Curing’ unpopular beliefs through psychiatry is throwback to ugly past

By David McElroy · June 3, 2013

In 1851, a southern physician named Samuel A. Cartwright concluded that many black slaves suffered from a mental condition which he called drapetomania. Those slaves afflicted by this malady had the desire to run away from their masters. Cartwright even prescribed whipping slaves as a “preventative measure.”

In the 1960s, some black men who were sent to mental hospitals for evaluation were disproportionately classified as schizophrenic. Why? Because they were involved in civil rights protests — which were said to make them fall victim to schizophrenia.

In the aftermath of World War II, doctors believed that fascist political beliefs were mentally disordered. There was even something call the “F scale,” which purported to test whether someone has fascist beliefs that need to be corrected.

Those are all ugly parts of the past for medical research and psychiatry, but we live in a more enlightened time when none of that could ever happen. Right? Well, maybe not.

Kathleen Taylor is an Oxford University researcher specializing in neuroscience. She suggested last week that religious fundamentalism might be treated as a mental illness soon.

“Someone who has for example become radicalised to a cult ideology — we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance,” Taylor told the Times of London (subscription required). “In many ways it could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage.”

If that doesn’t scare you, you’re not thinking very clearly about the implications.

Taylor is talking in this instance about Islamic fundamentalism, but couldn’t that be extended to any belief which “society” isn’t comfortable with? Is it a mental illness for a Muslim to believe in a literal view of his faith? Is it a mental illness for a Christian to take the Bible literally? What about those crazy people who believe that individuals have the natural right to their own freedom from being controlled by governments selected by other people?

Taylor says that religious fundamentalists have been “brainwashed,” but it’s probably a safe bet that she wouldn’t call the nationalistic teaching that American children get about the state — starting at a very early age — the same thing. But what’s the difference? Clearly, the difference is in whether she and others approve of the outcome.

I have quite a number of unpopular beliefs, so this line of thinking scares me. As more people decide they’re atheists and assert that atheism is the only rational belief, will the government enlist the psychiatric industry to neutralize my religious beliefs?

The new version of the psychiatric community’s bible — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — just came out. The DSM 5 is a massive update to the previous edition. Certain diagnoses have disappeared and new ones have shown up. Will religious belief be seen as mental illness by the time of the DSM 6 or 7? Up until 1973, the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness. Are people with my religious or political beliefs likely to be treated as mentally ill in the future? It seems that cultural fashion dictates much of what’s mental illness and what’s not.

I’m a big believer in the ability of psychological counseling to help many people. (I also believe that it pays to find an excellent therapist, because many of them are crazier than their clients, but that’s another issue.) However, the psychiatric model is entirely different. Psychiatrists want to treat most psychological issues as medical matters which can be fixed through drugs or some physical treatment. Although some people have found relief through psychiatry, I think the field has done much harm, too.

Whether you like what modern psychiatry is doing otherwise or not, there are serious reasons to be scared about the idea that science can “cure” people of certain beliefs.

It’s perfectly reasonable to hold people responsible for their actions. It’s monstrous to forcibly change what people believe. Although there are times when it would probably result in a better world for everyone, the danger of taking it to its logical conclusion is terrifying.

Share on Social Networks

I’m seeing a lot of simplistic and dishonest explanations right now for the current rioting in France. Those on the populist far right claim it’s all about Muslim immigrants to France disrupting the culture. Their message is that this sort of thing is going to happen in the U.S. unless “we defend the border.” On the far left, socialists and their fellow travelers claim the riots are all about wealthy people in France not paying enough taxes, resulting in cuts to government services. The truth is far more complicated, but it’s rooted in the decline of population growth in Europe. There simply aren’t enough young workers paying into the tax system anymore, so cuts in social services were inevitable. There is genuine cultural tension as more and more people immigrate from other countries, but government cuts to education and other services are even more important to what’s happening. The situation is complicated, so don’t let dishonest people with U.S. political agendas tell you that it happens to support whatever they were already promoting for partisan reasons.

Here’s another reason to appreciate the cats in your life: New research involving 93 countries found that places with more cats per person also tended to have happier people. The researchers say the finding fits with previous evidence that living with pets can reduce loneliness and stress while providing companionship, emotional attachment and social support. The study doesn’t prove that cats cause greater happiness, but it certainly adds to the evidence that sharing your home — and your life — with a cat might be good for you.

The company that owns Facebook and Instagram is heavily promoting its new AI-based software assistant called Muse, but people who are using it as it was designed are incredibly foolish. An early adopter of the software discovered that a few days ago when he advertised an item for sale on Facebook Marketplace — and he inadvertently gave Muse full authority to act on his behalf. The software agreed to a lowball offer made by another Facebook user and then gave that man the home address of the man for whom he was an agent. The software told the buyer that the seller was home and waiting for him. When the buyer showed up and waited angrily, the would-be buyer left an angry review for the man. And this angry man had the seller’s home address. It was only well after that that the software reported what it had done and admitted it had made a mistake. I won’t be putting that much power into the hands of any software. I think anyone who agrees to such terms is a fool. And the software’s user agreement says you’re responsible for purchases the software makes in your name. Nope.

Meet my new girlfriend. Her name is Meg. And she’s my little sweetheart. A couple of months ago, a neighbor across the street told me about a new stray in the neighborhood that she and I were both soon feeding. The cat had been very skittish about contact and she had a lot of scabs and parasites in her fur, but a trip to the vet last week revealed that she was otherwise in good health. The vet estimates her to be 1 to 2 years old. I named her for Meg Murry, the 13-year-old protagonist of Madeleine L’Engle’s wonderful book, “A Wrinkle in Time.” (Please read the book. Don’t watch the horrible movie.) Since we lost Lucy almost a year ago, it seems appropriate that we finally have a new little girl to join the household. She’s already captured my heart, but Alex, Oliver and Sam aren’t there quite yet.

There’s nothing socially acceptable that’s as dangerous as drinking alcohol. Most people grow up being told to “drink responsibly” — and all of us see people abusing this drug in one way or another — but the truth is that drinking alcohol is always a terrible risk. The alcohol in these drinks is toxic and the human liver has to work hard to filter the toxins out. What most people don’t realize is that alcohol is classified as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organization — because of the well-established connection between imbibing and various cancers. Many people have taken refuge behind the idea that light or moderate drinking might be safe, but a new study shows that drinking even one drink a day increases the risks of 10 types of cancer. When I was a teen-ager, I looked around and saw the negative effects that this behavior had on a lot of people and decided not to start drinking, so I’ve never even tried this poison. The evidence keeps piling up that I was lucky to have come to that conclusion early.

Related Posts