You've probably notice some similarities between Religion and Psychiatry, but never quiet put your finger on them. This excellent piece walks one through the history from Religion to Psychiatry, which is the foundation for, or justification for teen BM facilities.
****
When psychiatry and clinical psychology were born,
they adopted the then-prevailing moral beliefs of
society and by a neat linguistic parlor trick turned religious beliefs into scientific theories.
"Sin" became "sickness."
"Punishment" became "treatment."
"Unnatural" became "abnormal."
"Reconciliation" became "cure."
From:
http://radicalacademy.com/pggameintro.htmExcerpts:
Harsh treatment of most forms of deviant behavior was justified because the perpetrator had violated the laws of God (as pronounced, of course, by the religious leaders), or had violated laws of the State, most of which looked to religion for their justification.
Social deviants were sinners of the worst sort and both religious and social condemnation were appropriate. Later, as the influence of religion waned and the influence of "science" grew, the treatment accorded to social deviants changed. This is particularly true with respect to the development of Western psychiatry and psychology. As a result of this new influence, the justification for oppression of social deviancy also changed.
What has occurred, according to some observers, is that psychiatric oppression of social deviancy has replaced religious oppression of it. The attempt now is to legitimize the harm done by psychiatry (rather than religion) to a deviant individual. There are, according to Dr. Szasz, three main justifications for oppression of those who dare to deviate from the moral or social sanctions of a particular society.
1. "We" are human, but "they" are not.
The trick here is to turn the group to be oppressed into something other than human. By doing so, any member of that group is immediately removed from moral consideration. Common human morality no longer applies and things may be done to the members of the group without considering the morality of such.
Historical Examples
Jews - from human to "vermin"
Negroes - from human to "chattel"
Mental patient - from human to "sick organism"
Witches - from human to "evil beings"
Heretics - from human to "devils"
Women - from human to "property"
2. The victimizer claims "he" himself is the victim
The trick here is to argue that the group to be oppressed constitutes a threat to the ordinary, peace-loving citizen. The victimizer argues that he is a victim and must defend himself against these enemies.
Historical Examples
Jews - economic threat
Negroes - sexual threat
Heretics - religious threat
Witches - social threat
Communists - political threat
3. "They" are a threat, not to "us," but to "themselves"
Doctor Szasz argues that this is probably the most fashionable justification used today. We may oppress certain individuals or coerce them into accepting oppression because it is our "duty" to "save" them and "we" know what is "best" for them.
Historical Examples
Heretics - need to be "saved" or "reborn"
Mental patient - needs forced "treatment"
Children - need "protection"
Women - need "protection"
Negroes - need "guidance" and "protection"
From: Thomas Szasz, M.D., Psychiatric Slavery (New York: The Free Press, 1977), pp. 6-7.
These justifications are important because society must have reasons for what it does, even for its oppressive practices toward individuals or groups who constitute a minority or are, for some reason or other, not in the mainstream of, say, American life. These justifications are not used only for religious and psychiatric sanctions of deviant behavior, however. They are increasingly used for legal sanctions as well. And herein lies a major problem for believers in a society of free individuals.
People who manifested behavior deemed unacceptable, troublesome, or "perverse," were viewed as suffering from immorality. The "disease" was moral, not mental or medical. The cure was religious. The means for curing the moral "disease" ranged from religious confession to burning the victim at the stake. While most people have now rejected this, some remnants of it still remain in our culture.
During the latter of the nineteenth century, the religious model came under attack. With the advent Sigmund Freud and his disciples, a new model was proposed. It was not the soul that was "sick," but the mind. A whole new group of caretakers was created: the psychiatrists and psychotherapists.
New words and new definitions of old words entered our language as a result of the influence of psychiatry and psychology. We now speak of people being neurotic or psychotic, of repression, manic-depressive, Oedipus complex, sublimation, and so forth. Language has become an instrument of oppression itself. Language categorizes individuals into normal and abnormal, friend or foe, sick or well, harmless and dangerous, good and evil.
Psychotherapy has become a parlor game where every action is analyzed to death to see what is really meant by it. The "Freudian slip" becomes a tool for probing the inner depths of the psyche and the couch becomes the symbol of the psychiatric battlefield. Psychotherapy replaces religion as the healer of the soul and the office of the psychotherapist replaces the confessional box.
It is interesting to note that Dr. Mowrer mentioned that psychiatry and clinical psychology have not validated themselves. That is, in my interpretation, just another way of saying that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the theories that psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and other "mental health professionals" so profoundly propound. The theories, and therefore the so-called "treatments," rest on assumptions which these practitioners have simply accepted as being true. Many of these assumptions have really been transferred carte-blanche from the religious realm to the realm of "scientific" psychiatry and psychology.
Anyone who defied social conventions and practiced certain "perversions" or unapproved actions, sexual or otherwise, was considered a candidate for psychiatric therapy. It was that person's "duty" to seek proper "treatment" so he or she could get "well." The deviant, of course, was not truly responsible for the aberrant behavior, as he or she was according to the religious model, but the deviant had a clear obligation to seek "treatment" and to cooperate in that enterprise. Failing to do so could result in involuntary "treatment" and this, of course would be done for "their own good." The third justification for victimization!
Entire article at the link above.
