Mental Illness & Judgement

Obviously, I'm not entirely uninvested in this topic. But in exploring what mental illness is all about, we're forced to confront some uncomfortable questions about the way our society wants to be.

The problem comes from the definition of what a mental illness is. The wikipedia definition is fairly standard:

Quote

A mental disorder (also called a mental illness, psychiatric disorder, or psychological disorder) is a diagnosis, most often by a psychiatrist, of a behavioral or mental pattern that may cause suffering or a poor ability to function in life.

Clearly, that's the vaguest of definitions. According to this, anything that you ever do wrong in life can be classed as mental illness. A person with a pattern of making the wrong decisions (whether it harms others or only themselves) can be called mentally ill, based on this definition.

Take my own condition as an example. It's a processing disorder, which means I cannot process information efficiently. That counts as a mental illness, when contrasted with people who can process information efficiently. Confusingly, this doesn't work in reverse, when I compare my strengths to other people's weaknesses. I have a very good ability to retain information. Does that mean that people who don't, who aren't academically minded, have a mental illness in that they can't do what I can? A great many people's self-esteem is coroded by their lack of academic prowess, as well as the great deal of joy denied to them that is available to me. Perhaps they are not regarded as mentally ill because they are the majority rather than the minority. If being a minority is a requirement of mental illness, then any weakness that you may have which is relatively unique to you can be called an illness. We are all, therefore, mentally ill.

I think we all implicitly accept that a 'mental illness' is no more than a short-hand for a list of mental categories. What the difference is between a mental illness and a personality type or a skills profile is beyond me, as every individual carries their own unique set of challenges. But so far, so irrelevant.

Where this all gets very thorny is when you get into mental conditions which affect the people around you. I would argue that making moral judgements of people is (sadly) necessary for society to function. It's a way of confirming to each other that we, as a culture, agree that certain things are wrong. The lady on the news who abused her children. The murdering rapist. They are targets of hatred and anger. They also, by any definition, have a mental illness - their mental disposition has certainly given them a poor ability to function in life. But our rules say we're not allowed to judge people for having a mental illness. Or my ex, who was a nasty piece of work. It was pointed out to me that I shouldn't be so hard on her, because she'd been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. My reponse was: "So not only am I right about her, it's been scientifically proven." It wasn't the most popular of statements.

We seem to be forced into a logical dichotomy: Forgive mental illness and live in an amoral society, or to enforce ethical standards and, by definition, judge mental illness.

This could branch in so many directions - the nature of equality, basis of morality... I'll try to keep my discipline

Quote from 'zilla

A cause or explanation is not a justification. That is my opinion.

I 100%, totally agree.

I also agree that old-fasioned notions of punitary justice don't work. Like what you say about the emotional response, attacking wrongdoers and locking them up is so intuitive, so common-sense, that few people analyse it seriously. And, of course, whether you correct the behaviour or not, there is an immediate need to 'quarantine' the potential cause of future harm (the perpetrator).

Having said that, I don't think your hopes are all that intangible. I'm very optimistic about our culture and its future. A brief look at our history shows a clear march towards compassion. I don't know what the situation is in the US, Norway or anywhere else, but in the UK there is a definite culture of wanting to help criminals. There is still a lot of aggressive talk about justice, but there is an increasing focus on care, retraining and rehabilitation. Even twenty years ago that was not the case. I think this is the real gift of psychology. To understand. Because, like any branch of medicine, blocking the symptoms is not enough, and psychology helps us understand the causes and the most effective cure. And it's usually along the lines of what you're suggesting.

It's easier for a psychologist to be dispassionate. For the rest of us, what do we do with our emotional response? Even leaving aside the immediate family of a victim, people feel angry and smiting when they hear about certain crimes. Will it ever be possible to teach ourselves out of that, when it's engrained in our DNA? What if that instinctive reaction is necessry for social cohesion? Perhaps the best we can hope for right now is a divide between the populace and the proffessionals. The justice system's message would then be "Ok, you did a bad thing and now nobody likes you. But it's ok, because we're going to look after you and you're going to learn to be better".

There's one last thorny issue. I tiptoed around it a little in my OP.

Quote from 'zilla

A cause or explanation is not a justification. That is my opinion.

How does this then apply to a mentally ill person's view of themselves? Take someone with, I don't know, dyslexia. Many of them feel as though they're stupid. That makes us upset, because they don't deserve to feel that way. But if an explanation is not a justification, then the bottom line is, they do suck at spelling and grammar. Sure, it's not their fault, but what difference does that make? Perhaps the loophole is that it doesn't need justifying. I've always held that being 'stupid' is not something to be ashamed of, because only your moral conduct should count towards any judgement. But nonetheless, "You're dumb but it's not your fault" is hardly an empowering message. I may be using harsh words like stupid or dumb, but people with difficulties often feel that whatever you replace that adjective with is only ever a politican's synonym. I've heard them tell me that much. And, what do you say to someone who seems to make a cogent case for their own stupidity? What does society say?

Well said. for my part, I'm very fortunate in that my own challenges are mild and I haven't had to deal with some of the problems of my peers.

Maybe the term 'mental illness' needs to be done away with altogether, then. Fifty years ago, there was no dyslexia. You were just a form of dumb. Forty years ago, there was no autism, you were just another form of dumb. We are all indeed stupid in our own ways, and one by one those ways are being documented and named. Eventually there will be an 'illness' for everyone, and the term 'mental ill person' will cease to have any meaning. In light of this, 'mentally ill' is misleading - it suggests that there's something uniquely wrong with you. A more accurate description is that the things that are wrong with you have been studied, as opposed to 'non mentally ill' people who have things wrong with them as yet unstudied. An 'identified mental pattern' is a truer name, therefore. I'm doing the exact word-changing that I rubbished in my previous post, but it is more helpful description.

I do disagree, however, about the masses. The populace in general is often behind in terms of understanding, but I maintain my optimism. There is a will to understand and be compassionate. There is also an instinct to blame and reject. Glacially slow though it may be, the former has gained ground over the latter and will contiune to do so. People will reject less tomorrow than they did yesterday.