I was referring to the connection between the ideology which underpins our society and distress of people within it. Our ideology is predominantly neoliberal which of necessity creates winners and losers.

I’m curious by what you mean by “ideological origins of distress”. Is that like the Daily Show bit where they diagnosed an unhappy man with being a liberal? Or is this Frankfurt School stuff?

I don’t disagree with Diane that there are people out there who appear to have mental health problems that come ‘out of the blue’ and these people are perhaps well treated by the established diagnosis/intervention approach.

However what I would like to see, and what this blog project is essentially about, is greater awareness/acknowledgement of the place that mental health services have in our society. There are lots of things that provide succour for what are essentially unfair situations – aid to Africa would be an example. As you can tell from my approach, I feel that robust analysis has a place in the solution. You could argue that in this case a more balanced post would be appropriate and I’d have sympathy with that viewpoint, it’s just that they’re rather boring to read, and no one comments on them….

Certainly the prevalence of distress and pain that remains in our affluent society suggests something isn’t working. But contra the critical clinical psychologists you link to I don’t think offering some degree of help to people who are suffering implies ignorance or denial of the societal or philosophical causes of that suffering. If my doctor gives me a painkiller for the pain caused by a broken arm I sustained while being mugged by socially disadvantaged youths I do not then blame a lack of medication for the pain. I will take the medication and, once I am better, I will then set out to tackle the social injustices which led to me being mugged (if I can be bothered!). Furthermore, as Diane notes, very often difficulties arise which do not require a sociopolitical philosophical enquiry or explanation. Indeed a sociopolitical explanation would seem to be quite beside the point for someone who is suffering depression because of a dysfunctional thyroid or recent brain injury.

What really annoys me about critical clinical psychologists and psychiatrists is the moral high ground they take when they say stuff like this (from the link):

“These therapies require changes to occur within the person (e.g. medication, ECT, cognitive therapy, psychodynamic psychotherapy) or their immediate family (e.g. family therapy) to restore the individual to ‘normality’, rather than offering any challenge to both the social and ideological conditions that give rise to such distress.”

First of all, these therapies do not necessarily aim to restore someone to normality. Generally the aim is to reduce a person’s suffering or restore their ability to make decisions about their lives. What on earth is wrong with that?

I know a couple of critical clinical psychologists and I still have little idea what they say to their patients or do for them (do they advocate martyrdom or do they suggest they petition Downing Street to renounce capitalism?). I’m also aware of the lack of any robust political solutions being offered within the field to solve the supposed problems (let’s be honest, they really should be politicians rather than clinicans). Why can’t the critics let mental health workers continue to offer the small comforts they can while they crack on and form the political party which will deliver the Utopia they so desire?