Thomas Szasz

[gveranon]

The quotes below are from The Szasz Quotationary:

The language of psychiatry neglects, or deflects attention from, the essentially moral and political character of human development and social existence. The language of psychiatry thus de-ethicizes and depoliticizes human relations and personal conduct. In much of my work I have sought to undo this by restoring ethics and politics to their rightful place in matters of so-called mental health and mental illness. In short, I have tried to re-ethicize and repoliticize the language of psychiatry.

The modern person has no more right to be a madman than a medieval person had a right to be a heretic.

It is easier to do one's duty to others than to one's self. If you do your duty to others, you are considered reliable. If you do your duty to yourself, you are considered selfish.

In the animal kingdom, the rule is, eat or be eaten; in the human kingdom, define or be defined.

Mystification is the principal semantic tool of the would-be leader; demystification, of the man who wants to be his own master. It is a tragedy of the human condition that while the demystifier influences individuals, the mystifier moves multitudes.

The modern, liberal-scientific ethic: if it's bad for you, it should be prohibited; if it's good for you, it should be required.

In a modern mass democracy when the right man says the wrong thing, it is right; and when the wrong man says the right thing, it is wrong.

Although Freud liked to claim that he had disturbed the sleep of mankind, the opposite is the case: he provided people with the comfort of a false explanation.

Men cannot long survive without air, water, and sleep. Next in importance comes food. And close on its heels, solitude.

[diseased]

Szasz's arguments about coercion in regards to mental institutions are definitely humane, but their seems to be a thread of Social Darwinism running through his work. He reduces individual neuroses to "problems in living." Psychiatrists like Laing, Cooper, Basagalia, etc. seemed to offer more in terms of theory, while Szasz seemed reliant on game-playing models.

[gveranon]

Quote Originally Posted by diseased

Szasz's arguments about coercion in regards to mental institutions are definitely humane, but their seems to be a thread of Social Darwinism running through his work. He reduces individual neuroses to "problems in living." Psychiatrists like Laing, Cooper, Basagalia, etc. seemed to offer more in terms of theory, while Szasz seemed reliant on game-playing models.

I find Szasz to be highly readable, thought-provoking, and on the whole more congenial than his enemies. His wide-ranging philosophical and historical erudition brings in perspectives that have been lost in the age of white-coated specialization, perspectives that are irrelevant to the supposedly-objective ethic of technocracy. Yes, he made some of the right enemies.

I don't agree with some of his positions. Evidence continues to amass that there is a biological basis to some mental problems; they aren't only "problems in living," although of course they are problems in living, so a practical-ethical approach is relevant (to be fair, cognitive therapists and others seem to take some approaches that are similar to Szasz's). And Szasz's notion that if a problem can't be seen in a postmortem examination, it isn't biologically-based is false (too many counter-examples, like migraine).

He hated being lumped in with Laing, which people did simply on the basis that they were both radical critics of conventional psychiatry. The only Laing books I've read are The Divided Self, about schizoid and schizophrenic states of mind, which I found very interesting, and Knots which is formally brilliant -- I want to read it as a kind of avant-garde fiction. I don't know that Szasz would agree with a characterization of his views as Social Darwinism. He is a libertarian; conflating libertarianism and Social Darwinism is an oft-seen canard. (By the way, I am not a libertarian.) I don't know anything about Cooper. Buscaglia was the guy who wrote bestsellers about the importance of hugging; to which I respond "Get the hell away from me."

[diseased]

I think Szasz wrote a book condemning the anti-psychiatric movement, "Quackery Squared," or something like that. I'd be interested to read it.

[gveranon]

Quote Originally Posted by diseased

I think Szasz wrote a book condemning the anti-psychiatric movement, "Quackery Squared," or something like that. I'd be interested to read it.

Yeah, that book looks interesting. It came out a couple of years ago, when Szasz was 90 years old!

[gveranon]

"Redefining Mental Illness"

A vindication, or partial vindication, of Thomas Szasz? Szasz is not mentioned in the article, but...

[teguififthzeal]

Thomas Szasz was very irresponsible. In person, if you disagreed with him, he was a total dick; his wife was a schizophrenic who shot herself before he wrote "The Myth of Mental Illness".

[gveranon]

Quote Originally Posted by teguififthzeal

Thomas Szasz was very irresponsible. In person, if you disagreed with him, he was a total dick; his wife was a schizophrenic who shot herself before he wrote "The Myth of Mental Illness".

Szasz's wife shot herself before he wrote The Myth of Mental Illness? The biographical information I have seen says he was married once, from 1951 to 1970, and his marriage ended in divorce. The Myth of Mental Illness was published in 1961, about mid-way through his marriage.

Szasz was irresponsible, I agree, but not as irresponsible as, say, Sigmund Freud. When people disagreed with Szasz, he was a dick about it -- I agree completely with that, but it's worth pointing out that he was under siege from the psychiatric establishment for decades. I don't fault him for giving back as good as he got. Late in life, he also accepted invitations to speak to Scientologists (you missed that one).

Whatever his personal flaws and the flaws of his positions, he was still a valuable critic of psychiatry as a medical field and the psychiatric-industrial complex, in my opinion. And his books are still worth reading (not uncritically, of course).

[teguififthzeal]

Yeah, but Freud parked a little nearer to genius.

Whatever the date and times, Szasz was saying "#### you" to his own perceived guilt. His own wife was out of control with the same disease he claimed didn't really exist. For the continued rights of patients, yeah, I guess Szasz has value: however, all that bullish*t about a person getting stuck with a needle full of haldol when they are psychotic or homicidal is just that, if you've ever witnessed anything like that. The mental health system is good or bad just according to the amount of money you do or do not have; however, it is not the funhouse Szasz made it out to be.

[gveranon]

teguififthzeal: Do you have any source for your claim that Szasz's wife was schizophrenic and shot herself? I haven't been able find anything about that. I don't know enough to say it isn't true, but I'm pretty skeptical. There is another psychiatrist named Martin Blinder whose wife shot herself; are you thinking of him?

Addendum: This source says Szasz's wife committed suicide after their divorce. Nothing about her being schizophrenic, though. If there is anything scandalous here, or discrediting to Szasz himself, the internet is surprisingly mum about it.

Szasz's wife died in 1971. He began publishing his negative opinions about conventional psychiatry in the late '50s. The timeline is relevant to any claim about Szasz's work having anything to do with his "perceived guilt."