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

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.