Is Psychiatry pathologising anti-authoritarianism?

[Tahuti]

In case you are not familiar with psychiatry, there is a diagnosis called ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder), which considers hostility towards authority figures to be a symptom. It is also thought to be a precursor to Antisocial personality disorder.

Now, what if authority figures are fundamentally unjust? What if your parents, teachers and employers are genuinely bad and you fight back? It might still get you this diagnosis as a child. Or, if you are an adult, you will be branded having Antisocial personality disorder.

Antisocial personality disorder considers criminal behavior to be hallmark of the diagnosis. It doesn't ask questions regarding the justness or fairness of the definition of 'crime'. No doubt, the actions of most anti-apartheid activists, Anti-Nazi resistance fighters and people in similar roles engage in what is defined as criminal behavior in their society. And thus, psychiatry would label them antisocial, or even psychopathic. Or in the case of Soviet dissidents, 'sluggishly schizophrenic'.

If 'psychopathy' is defined to be chronic norm and law-breaking, then it is arguably a good thing, in certain circumstances. Murdering innocents is wrong, yet killing willing servants of a murderous regime or an oppressive social order would not be, yet still is equated with one another. There are apocryphal tales of Martin Luther King engaging in academic fraud and lewd behavior, yet in the light of his accomplishments toward removing racism in American society, he still deserves to be honoured and make his bad sides seem inconsequent in comparison.

Homosexuality used to be considered a psychiatric disease, to be often associated with psychopathy. Many writers and artists such as Franz Kafka and Vincent van Gogh arguably suffered from what psychiatry terms Borderline Personality disorder, which, like Antisocial Personality Disorder, is often associated with what is termed by Cleckley and Hare 'psychopathic behavior'. Yet Cleckley and Hare seem only to be interested in labelling anything that deviates from Bourgeois norms as 'psychopathic'.

Now you may ask: We need psychiatry for treating depression. Indeed, I thought psychiatry was necessary to treat mine. What if depression is simply caused by maladaptive coping behaviors which can be altered outside psychiatry, or is even caused by fundamental unjustness of the social order and a sense of learned powerlessness deterring depressives from fighting it?

So, is psychiatry demonising anti-authorianism? Should we therefore imagine the benign psychopath (übermensch? Anti-Oedipus?), who - because, rather than in spite of, his selfishness, narcissism and 'impulsivity' (fearlessness) - fights authority and thus culturally advances human society?

 

[Hygro]

This is one of the most pressing social issues of our time. Good topic.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think it is tenuous to call 'anti-authoritarianism' a pathology. I mean some people may be mostly 'reactionary', yet this isn't worth being termed a pathology imo. If it was, teens would be pathologic by virtue of being teens And anti-authoritarianism can easily be non-reactionary. If TPTB attack you, you would be rather self-destructive to just bow cause they are an 'authority'.

Moreover it doesn't make sense to term any possible fallacy as a pathology. A pathology should be about really evident issues, which harm you in manner both evident and unusual compared to most people.

 

[Daw]

Is Psychiatry pathologising anti-authoritarianism?

No, I don't think it is.

In case you are not familiar with psychiatry, there is a diagnosis called ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder), which considers hostility towards authority figures to be a symptom. It is also thought to be a precursor to Antisocial personality disorder.

Right.

However, a guy saying, like, "Putin is a crapbag, Navalny roolz!" or "Obama sucks, vote for Donald!" or "Obama sucks, vote for Hillary!" or anything of the kind does not match that diagnosis. It's just that he doesn't agree with some others on who the authority is. And that's quite normal.

A person's authority may even be a long passed historical character: "Both Putin and Navalny are crapbags, Stalin roolz!" or "My old man would've never allowed that!"

Or even a never actually existed fictional person: "No, Stalin was a bloody monster while Putin and Navalny are in fact crapbags, Don Quixote was Da MANg!" or "I wish Superman came to save us all..."

It's when someone does not acknowledge any authority whatsoever, then it is worrisome.

 

[Tahuti]

It's when someone does not acknowledge any authority whatsoever, then it is worrisome.

Do you think it's pathological, or something else?

If it was, teens would be pathologic by virtue of being teens And anti-authoritarianism can easily be non-reactionary.

I've dropped being reactionary some time ago. However, I might still be labelled a reactionary for wanting to resurrect at least some of the values of hunter-gatherers.

 

[CivCube]

I've worked in mental health. Anti-social personality disorder goes way beyond anti-authority. My colleagues and I encouraged a critical eye and action against authority--that's where so much mental illness originates!

Anti-social refers to a disregard for the basic human contract. You know, the idea that I'm not going to slash your tires because you didn't say hi to me. That I'm not going to explode and beat you if I don't get what I want. Really, really basic things. Questioning political authority or the police is not a criterion for diagnosis.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It's when someone does not acknowledge any authority whatsoever, then it is worrisome.

How do you tell the difference between someone who acknowledges no authority and someone who acknowledges no existing authority, but would acknowledge some hypothetical "just" authority? You have to assert that you live in a reasonably just society in order to state that you can tell the difference between the two types of people within that society.

And that's even assuming that not acknowledging "just" authority is part of the definition, which it doesn't appear to be. As long as they do (or would) accept some authority, regardless of what that authority is or how it operates (even if it were a murderous regime), then they wouldn't be diagnosed with ODD would they?

 

[Daw]

Do you think it's pathological, or something else?

I think it is, yes. However, I think that such cases are pretty rare, and most likely come in a package with quite some aggravations like those CivCube describes. Which makes the cases pretty obvious.

 

[Daw]

How do you tell the difference between someone who acknowledges no authority and someone who acknowledges no existing authority, but would acknowledge some hypothetical "just" authority?

I talk to them to find out.

You have to assert that you live in a reasonably just society in order to state that you can tell the difference between the two types of people within that society.

No, I don't have to. Why?

And that's even assuming that not acknowledging "just" authority is part of the definition, which it doesn't appear to be.

"Just" is not a part of the definition. Any authority would do.

As long as they do (or would) accept some authority, regardless of what that authority is or how it operates (even if it were a murderous regime), then they wouldn't be diagnosed with ODD would they?

That's right, they wouldn't be diagnosed with that if they do/would accept whatever authority. Which doesn't mean they shouldn't be diagnosed with something else though.

 

[BvBPL]

In response to the question posed in the title of this thread, no, it is not. The thesis provided by Tovergieter rests upon an incomplete understanding of mental disorders.

To get the pedantry out of the way, a mental disorder is not necessarily a mental illness, which puts most mental disorders outside if the pathological sphere. A mental disorder is a dysfunction in behavior, not necessarily a disease. To illustrate this by analogy, say you broke a bone in an accident and it did not heal right, causing a limp. That limp is not a disease as a disorder is not an illness. The broken bone is a disability, but it is not a pathology. Mental disorders of the caliber of ODD are similar to that limp, consequences of stress but not diseases.

Secondly, for a behavior to be a disorder, it must be consistent. This places situational defiance resulting from appropriate external stimuli outside of the sphere if the disorder. You might hate your drill Sargent for giving you kp duty because your squad was the slowest around the track this morning. That is not a disorder because it is founded on the external behavior of the Sargent, a behavior that would elicit hate in any individual. ODD describes not the person who hates unjust authority but the one who opposes all authority regardless of its source merely because it is authority. The person with ODD basically can't help himself but to dispute authority.

But it doesn't even describe everyone with a knee jerk reaction to authority. Instead it describes those who suffer from a dysfunction related to authority (as all disorders describe a dysfunction). Simply put, one has a dysfunction when the condition creates problems for the one suffering from it. The anarchist who rails against authority at every opportunity but whose behavior does not negatively affect her life is not suffer a dysfunction and therefore does not have the disorder.

So to sum up, a disorder is not necessarily an illness and therefore not a pathology. Nor does the disorder describe someone who opposes authority in a situational manner nor even she who routinely opposes authority as a matter of course but whose opposition to authority does not affect her life in a substantial and negative manner. Instead ODD describes the person who cannot help but oppose authority, not on the basis of a given authority but merely because it is authority, and whose opposition creates significant disability for him.

 

[Tahuti]

I've worked in mental health. Anti-social personality disorder goes way beyond anti-authority. My colleagues and I encouraged a critical eye and action against authority--that's where so much mental illness originates!

Anti-social refers to a disregard for the basic human contract. You know, the idea that I'm not going to slash your tires because you didn't say hi to me. That I'm not going to explode and beat you if I don't get what I want. Really, really basic things. Questioning political authority or the police is not a criterion for diagnosis.

I'm aware that many people diagnosed with ASPD aren't exactly the nicest people. However, my point is that the criteria of ASPD as presented in the DSM can easily be misused in a way that is reminiscent of 'Drapetomania'. In fact, by also giving the label of ASPD to genuine scumbags like Ted Bundy, people diagnosed with ASPD for simply deviating from the norm are even more stigmatised than they already are.

I have encountered people diagnosed with ODD myself and while not exactly the most easy people to be around, I found it in their particular cases, I would argue their behavior was almost necessitated by the circumstances they lived in, such as abandonment by parents at young age, for instance. In this particular case it isn't so much their own failings or a genetic predisposition as it is society's failure to appropriately channel the energies these individuals have to offer.

DSM definition of ASPD, and why it is problematic:

Spoiler :

A) A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:

* failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;

Abolitionists would have fulfilled that criteria in most US states before the abolition of slavery.

* deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;

I wonder where that would leave those fleeing political persecution using forged passports.

* impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;

Define 'impulsivity'.

* irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;

Doesn't seem to differentiate between pre-emptive aggression and self-defence.

* reckless disregard for safety of self or others;

Taking physical risks may be necessary in extreme circumstances, yet these aren't presented as mitigating factors. Again, this criteria is vaguely defined.

* consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;

Basically, this criteria equates non-conformity to bourgeois values to moral insanity.

* lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

B) The individual is at least age 18 years.
C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

For the record: I don't think there is much of an inherent difference between resisting "unjust" or "just" authority. I think the crux rather lies in what the cost-benefit-analysis of such resistance looks like.
For instance resisting authority in the way CivCube describes has a terrible cost-benefit-analysis. The social cost of going full berserk because someone didn't say hi to you can easily grow to be immense and very much long-term, the benefit is... having a short moment of anger high when you act on it.

Sometimes mental health is described as "functionality", and critics like to understand this as relating mental health to conformity. I think this is a slight misunderstanding. I think this functionality is not so much about serving "the system" or whatever but about serving yourself.
If for instance you knowingly ruin your life for your ideals or for what you believe in, I think it is fair to say that you are probably a bit delusional. However, that assumes that you actually (and knowingly) ruin it. If fighting for your ideals gives you a great deal of meaning and satisfaction, that may not actually be the case even though from an outside perspective it may look like you do.

In a nutshell: I think mental health is most of all about realizing what you are choosing and being able to make a choice towards the furthering of your self-interest (which explicitly includes altruistic choices as a potential option! If that is your cup of tea). And that just happens to often mean to accept various authorities. Because you are small and totally ordinary and insignificant, for the most part.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think this might be a good example of why my psych professors didn't want their undergrads reading the DSM.

 

[Tahuti]

I think this might be a good example of why my psych professors didn't want their undergrads reading the DSM.

'Psych' as in Psychology or as in Psychiatry? If it were the former, it would make a lot of sense, actually.

 

[Daw]

Psychologists don't work with DSM (well, at least they were not supposed to here when I was taking the course within my training as a teacher).

As for the Psychiatrists - who are medical personnel - there's a so called Student's Syndrome for those students who read things like DSM and diagnose themselves with everything from there because every sign and symptom seems to be obviously applicable.

 

[EgonSpengler]

'Psych' as in Psychology or as in Psychiatry? If it were the former, it would make a lot of sense, actually.

The former, yes. I think the professors didn't want students (undergrads, at any rate) reading it because it's so tempting and easy to misuse and/or misunderstand it.

there's a so called Student's Syndrome for those students who read things like DSM and diagnose themselves with everything from there because every sign and symptom seems to be obviously applicable.

Right, I remember one of my professors mentioning "medical student syndrome." Of course, that admonition didn't stop half the class from doing it anyway.

 

[Lexicus]

Abolitionists would have fulfilled that criteria in most US states before the abolition of slavery.

Actually, not true. Most abolitionists were pretty law-abiding. Your John Browns were a rarer breed- and John Brown was, in all probability, pretty damn crazy (but also awesome).

I wonder where that would leave those fleeing political persecution using forged passports.

This is disingenuous and I suspect you must know it. You even decided to leave out the bit where it says "for personal profit or pleasure."

Define 'impulsivity'.

An idea comes into your head so you act on it without much, or any, thought.

Doesn't seem to differentiate between pre-emptive aggression and self-defence.

The word "aggressiveness" is probably a clue.

Taking physical risks may be necessary in extreme circumstances, yet these aren't presented as mitigating factors. Again, this criteria is vaguely defined.

Not really. The word 'reckless' basically covers mitigating factors. Risk-taking in 'extreme circumstances' would generally not be considered reckless.

Basically, this criteria equates non-conformity to bourgeois values to moral insanity.

Well, this one I'll give you, while noting that virtually any culture attempts to do the same thing - turn its rules into sacred, universal code of behavior, deviation from which demonstrates something gravely wrong with the deviant. In lots of hunter-gatherer societies (which I'll bring up because you said you might want to return to some of their values) simple lynching was what happened to people who got too gung-ho about flouting The Rules.

 

[luiz]

Hum, I can see why this may be applied in all sorts of evil ways (like the USSR used to brand as a psychiatric pathology mere opposition to the regime), but being resistant to any and all authority seems like a pathology to me. Kids should indeed show a certain respect for the authority of their parents and teachers, and should do stuff even if they don't want to or can't fully understand why they're being told to do it. "Rebelling" against parental authority would mean running into a busy street or not taking showers every day.

Even as adults a certain submission to political authority is necessary if we are to function as a society. We all need to follow rules we don't like. That doesn't mean dissent ought to be restricted, only that there's a right and a wrong way to "rebel" against what we disagree with, and it very much depends on the circumstances.

 

[Lexicus]

not taking showers every day.

Horror of horrors!

 

[Tahuti]

"Rebelling" against parental authority would mean running into a busy street or not taking showers every day.

I don't what you think, though I suspect you would consider rebelling against sexually or physically abusive parents not more of an evil than I would.

Actually, not true. Most abolitionists were pretty law-abiding. Your John Browns were a rarer breed- and John Brown was, in all probability, pretty damn crazy (but also awesome).

Wasn't freeing slaves defined as crime back then?

This is disingenuous and I suspect you must know it. You even decided to leave out the bit where it says "for personal profit or pleasure."

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, though I thought the "personal profit or pleasure" part specifically referred to conning others. Anyway, fleeing persecution is arguably personal profit still: You still end up with a better situation.

The word "aggressiveness" is probably a clue.

"as indicated by repeated physical fights..." It doesn't seem to differentiate how one gets involved in physical fights. Fighting off police brutality may still be seen as somehow fulfilling that criteria, which is what worries me.

Not really. The word 'reckless' basically covers mitigating factors. Risk-taking in 'extreme circumstances' would generally not be considered reckless.

The problem is that it still up to the psychiatrist to define 'reckless'. What you may consider mitigating circumstances may be very well be defined as 'reckless' by others. That's why diagnosis by medical students as discussed by EgonSpengler and Daw is to some degree "valid", because of the highly subjective nature to diagnoses.

Well, this one I'll give you, while noting that virtually any culture attempts to do the same thing - turn its rules into sacred, universal code of behavior, deviation from which demonstrates something gravely wrong with the deviant. In lots of hunter-gatherer societies (which I'll bring up because you said you might want to return to some of their values) simple lynching was what happened to people who got too gung-ho about flouting The Rules.

No society will be completely free of social mores. However, it is still important that these values can be questioned. Obviously, we are never going to return to hunter-gather societies 1:1, which is good, for the reason you have mentioned.