The belief that the world was flat kept anyone from sailing far enough West to prove it wrong. In the same way, calling depression, mania, hallucination, and delusion "illnesses" or "disabilities" has the same effect. As long as we cling to the belief that there is nothing good about our condition, we will never make the effort to prove it wrong.
I prefer to call it a "condition" instead of "illness" or "disability." Condition means "the circumstances affecting the way in which people live"1 and carries no positive or negative connotation. Choosing to see it as a condition opens up the possibility that we can turn it into something positive in our lives.
Just as the false linkage of symptom and reaction in the definition causes great harm, thinking of it as a "disability" creates loss of hope. Although it is clearly disabling for most people who have our condition, it is the labeling as such that keeps us from even trying to make it anything other than something to endure or avoid.
People love to compare mental conditions to physical ones. It seems to create a concreteness to the state as if a mental condition is somehow less valid. Researchers, possibly motivated by the pharmaceutical companies, have gone to great lengths to prove that there is a physical aspect to the condition. Patients have gladly accepted this view as proof somehow that they have no responsibility for it.
I often read and hear arguments comparing mental conditions to cancer or an amputation. They cite the physical aspects along with the inability to fully function to claim that mental conditions are just as much of a "disability" as the loss of a leg. While this argument sounds good on the surface, it is on par with the flat earth argument once you have seen the other side.
Just like what Columbus was subjected to for challenging the beliefs of his day, I often receive strong arguments accusing me of being dangerous or judgmental for suggesting that there is an element of responsibility in how we react to our condition. A recent comment is illustrative: "Is my mental illness a result of my failure to take control of my life and do things like 'master rage?' If so, is my illness merely a matter of my poor character? Or failure/unwillingness to change? The danger of such thoughts for me is that they can lead to crushing guilt."
It is so much easier to hold on to the disability argument that many would rather be disabled for the rest of their lives than face the possibility that they may be wrong. Keeping in mind that the "illness" refers to disability, not the condition, the answer is yes. Your mental "illness" is partly a result of your failure to take control of your life and do things like "master rage." We must be careful not to use "illness" as an excuse or justification for our behavior.
Taking responsibility might even bring up feelings of guilt for our past and current actions. Allowing those feelings to be "crushing" is another disabling wrong reaction to a very real "condition." A well developed program as outlined in the How To Get There section needs to address those issues also.
The illness vs condition argument applies to psychosis also. The argument was made beautifully in the book The Natural Mind by Andrew Weil, MD:
"Psychotics are persons whose nonordinary experience is exceptionally strong. If they have not integrated this experience into conscious awareness (or so repressed it that it causes physical illness), it takes very negative mental forms. But every psychotic is a potential sage or healer and to the extent that negative psychotics are burdens to society, to that extent can positive psychotics be assets... They possess the secret to changing reality by changing the mind; if they can learn to use that talent for positive ends, there are no limits to what they can accomplish."2
I couldn't have said it better myself! His solution: "To effect this transformation we must remove obstacles to the change... and bring patients into contact with healed compatriots--that is, with persons who have themselves made the transformation." That is exactly what this book is about and why peer support should be given only by those who have the condition "in order."
Having seen the other side, I find it as impossible to accept the disability argument as Columbus could agree that the world was flat. I may have been temporarily disabled by my inability to control my reaction, but I certainly am not missing a leg. As I outlined in the Results Worth Striving For section, it is an advantage to have our condition once we understand it.
Comments are closed.