====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:35:12 -0800 dave x <dave...@gmail.com> writes: > > > I will note that I said on your blog something to this effect - if > the right > wing discourse sometimes sounds schizophrenic this tells us > something about > the right wing but little about schizophrenia or schizophrenics. I > have > agreed with your take on Loughner though not necessarily with your > take on > the tea party (I see the tea party as connected to a dangerous right > wing > authoritarian trend in neoliberal democracy, they may be a > distraction now > but it does not mean they will remain so). The general lack of > understanding > of mental illness has been discouraging. In part this is is no doubt > simply > the result of the general public lack of knowledge about mental > illness but > I wonder if it also doesn't have to do with a certain reluctance on > the left > to see people in biological terms. In the case of left-wing attitudes towards mental illness, I think that Thomas Szasz's "The Myth of Mental Illness" played a major role in shaping attitudes back in the 1960s and 1970s, even though Szasz himself is a right-wing libertarian. And Szasz was part of an anti-psychiatric trend that also encompassed Michel Foucault (who Szasz drew heavily from), and R.D. Laing, whose writings were also very popular in the 1960s and 1970s. > Certainly there is a very real > history of > the misuse of biological concepts for reactionary political ends so > it is > reasonable to be suspicious and critical (and I think this became > ingrained > during the new left as a sort of knee-jerk response) but frankly > there is a > lot of good science out there now on the biological basis of > behavior that > we won't be able to ignore forever. Up through the 1960s and beyond there was very legitmate concern about people being involuntarily institutionalized for being "different." Since at the time in many states, all you needed was the signature(s) of one to three doctors (depending on the state) to get someone committed. Most of us here are familiar with the use of psychiatry in the former Soviet Union against political dissidents. But similar practices existed in the United States and other countries too. So that sort of history, I think, helped to shape left-wing attitudes towards psychiatry. > Sorting out the politics of > recent > advances in neurobiology and genetics is a task that remains to be > done. To > recognize that biology must be taken seriously both in itself and at > a > political level is not to be reductionist or 'biologist' it is to > be > materialist. > > > Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math ____________________________________________________________ Travelocity Vacation Package Deals Book A Vacation Now & Save Up To 30% on Hotels & Vacation Packages. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d343b05b22b6c47412st04vuc ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
