Coping Mechanisms as "a Way of Being in the World"

Deconstructing Mental Illness-- THIS FANTASTIC STRUGGLE Excerpt, Ch. 11

"In order to come to some understanding of what causes [someone] to be mad, or to be labelled as mad, we need to deconstruct the very concept of madness itself."

So stated Jane Ussher, echoing the libertarian psychiatrists Thomas Szasz and R. D. Laing, as she sifted through psychiatric, sociological, and feminist perspectives of madness in her book “Women's Madness: Misogyny or Mental Illness?” * Szasz and Laing both radically argued for a different perspective on the mentally ill. In the 1960's and `70's they boldly put forth the idea that the very "diagnosis of madness [is] a moral judgment based on value-laden conceptualizations of health and illness." One man's conception of unhealthy behavior, in other words, is not all men's. But there is an accepted norm, a mass moral value judgment established by those in power, in the majority, in the mainstream of a society, defining just what is healthy and unhealthy.

According to Szasz and Laing, madness of any degree is more a label than anything else, one that is all too easily given to those who behave too differently from the mainstream. These deviants are seen as dangerous and stigmatized, called crazy for simply challenging conventional thought. (As even Szasz and Laing had beencondemned for attacking the modern medical model which, pathologizing distress, focuses on looking for physiological causes of, and using drug treatments for, mental illness).

Attention has always been focused on the “crazy” person, instead of an examination of the society in which that person, and all persons, are trying to exist. Szasz and Laing were the first to swerve most prominently from that path, seeing society, ever unwilling to celebrate diversity, as that which is unhealthy, or crazy. The two psychiatrists, in addition to some feminist and sociological theorists, agree that the symptoms of madness are better seen as "a reflection of the inequalities and conflicts within society." * For man or woman, mental illness is about "problems in living," as Szasz outlined throughout The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct. Those having difficulty conforming to the mores and manners of a society would not be ill in the eyes of the “anti-psychiatrists” (as Szasz and Laing were known) but demonstrating a healthy response, "a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world," if they were to move toward arenas where they felt most healthy.

Esther's move to Greenwich Village to be with others who valued art and creativity was such a movement. Perhaps not only, then, "out of desire" but also out of necessity does the artist create “a self which simultaneously embodies her in the world and marks her out as distinct, unassailably herself, unlike any other being. . . ." Because withdrawing to a place that gives such access might be more than outwardly locational, it might be within. For in trying to develop one's work, the artist finds himself also pulling in toward a world of morals and manners that make sense to him--an exclusionary inner life. In order to not be assaulted by the crazed machinations of society, artists stay sane by sticking to each other, keeping to themselves. Esther moved toward a psychic space that would nurture her, and away from one where she ironically was taught early to follow her talent, then was ultimately punished for it. There were no positive social outcomes for her choosing to be an artist.

We are all confronted with the fact that our social roles need to be confirmed by society if we are to be considered healthy. Szasz noted that artists, creative people, the poor and displaced, fringe characters--all dealing with rejection by society--are usually labelled “crazy” by western culture. "The typical American mental patient today is usually a poor person in trouble or accused of making trouble, who is declared mentally ill against his will." Szasz pointed out, as did other scholars from the 1970's on, that women who rebelled through the ages have been treated for mental illness and have found themselves institutionalized more often than any other demographic subgroup in western culture. Esther healthily recognized who she was, quite aware and knowledgeable of her ability, and mindful of her life, though it was different from her family and society's conception of what it should be. But she was stigmatized both as artist and unconventional woman. Her needs were far different than what family, and ultimately society, needed or wanted--a person producing steady income from a “regular” job, and a woman steadfastly devoted to home, husband, and family.

Behaving and living inherently different, then, from the mass of society, is enough to provoke severe denunciations from those in the dominant, homogeneous majority. As Szasz and now others directly contend, such “different” behavior has contributed to landing individuals in state mental hospitals. Because of "the conflicts inherent in the tensions between individual needs and the needs of society,"9 further symptoms of what is commonly accepted as mental illness manifest in these people who live and act differently from the norm. What becomes slowly visible, upon contemplating the vast scholarly literature now available on madness, is that in the deviant's struggle to fit either the mold of one who is working at a “good job” or one who is the “right type of woman” to marry, for example, or even to choose to try to coexist in a society that only esteems such individuals, the deviant can go mad. It was of course the latter that so wore on Esther, making her feel as if she wasn't measuring up.

Libertarian psychiatrists, feminist counselors and humanists see the person who has been labelled crazy as having legitimate suffering, indeed--much of which stems from societal pressures to conform, to deny one's innate, unique nature. These very scholars and social workers do not deny the presence of unusual traits of behavior in such suffering individuals, just as it can not be denied that Esther began exhibiting odd behaviors and mannerisms. But they argue that these traits are cultivated as basic coping mechanisms, “a way of being in the world” that protects the individual to a certain extent. Elaine Showalter also documented similar patterns in those who developed mental illness, and reflected that madness is in actuality "the desperate communication of the powerless," as they attempt to stay afloat. Extreme manifestations--crippling paranoia, bizarre personality disorders, and the like--that truly get in the way of living, might be viewed as examples of coping mechanisms gone awry, tested too rigorously, perhaps, in the external world or within the asylum walls…

*Notes/ Bibliography:

Laing, R. D. The Politics of Experience . Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967. As quoted from Ussher’s Women’s Madness: Misogyny or Mental Illness? Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1992.

Szasz, Thomas S. The Manufacture of Madness--A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and The Mental Health Movement . New York: Harper and Row, 1970.

Szasz, Thomas S. The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct . London: Secker Publishing, 1961.

Chesler, Phyllis Women and Madness . Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1972. Here as quoted in Ussher.

Hite, Shere. The Hite Report: Women and Love--A Cultural Revolution in Progress. New York: Knopf, 1987. Here as quoted in Ussher.

Showalter, Elaine. The Female Malady: Women, Madness, and English Culture,1830-1980 . New York: Pantheon Books, 1985.

Ussher, Jane. Women’s Madness: Misogyny or Mental Illness? Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1992.

Sara Via Pais, “Shapes of the Feminine Experience in Art”

Pix cover of Ussher