Thursday, August 18, 2011

New Paradigm Needed for Various Reasons

By Patricia Lefave, Old Paradigm De-bunker

We need a whole new paradigm because this domination/submission, aggression/compliance paradigm only creates MORE of the same kind of problems (‘illnesses’) and keeps it going, generation after generation.
What we need is a paradigm of personal empowerment which includes a mutual respect for boundaries going in BOTH directions at the same time. That means this current extreme imbalance of power is going to have to come to an end.
Well, how are we going to do that? How are we going to get those who love all this power and control to change their minds? Power it seems it very addictive and as with all addictions, getting the addict to let go of what makes him FEEL better is not going to be an easy task. I do believe though that applying the same principles as those used to try to get any other addict ‘clean and sober’ will have to be employed. Of course as we all know it is the addict him/herself who is going to have to be motivated to choose change and many really don't WANT to so this is not going to be an easy road we travel.

When we talk to them, we are going to have to talk to them  in two ways only; on the level of the first person singular, holding our own boundaries or else on the level of principles which we must insist be applied to ALL people and not the “them and us” application as is used now. For example we might try asking the psychiatrists if it is all right if we tell them we will do one thing and then do the opposite as long as it is behind their backs. We might ask them if they will understand that if we get caught in our duplicity, we will be obliged to lie about it to take care of our own interests and ask them if that is OK. If they seem to object to that, we can ask them if they think they are being realistic to expect us to admit to anything etc. Are you getting the idea here?
If they really believe in what they do, then they will not mind our questions, nor will they find our expectations that the same rule book will be applied to them to be at all odd. After all, as we can point out, THEY are the ones modelling the meaning and practise of mental health to us, are they not? Remember to always talk in a matter of fact, non emotional tone while doing this so you can’t be accused of suffering from some ‘inappropriate affects’ being ‘simulated’ by your ‘defective’ brain. Psychiatry is focused on emotional REACTIONS most of the time now and not on concrete reality or relationships and events. So keep that in mind as you try to penetrate the resistance to any recognition of error which they have had built up by their training in bio psych. Take your cues from those who believe they are the epitome of intelligence and emotional integration. How can they find fault with that after all? To do so would be to ‘admit’ they were not as highly integrated as they would like the world to believe, so naturally they will have to suppress that won’t they?

Now it is often true that those around the identified patient need this new way of being much more than the identified patient needs it, though the I.P. of course is going to benefit from the change. At this point in time almost any change which moves away from the bio psych “fixer” bit can benefit the labelled individual.

So, I believe that what we all need to focus on is dumping the domination/submission paradigm, pressuring those who keep promoting it, to knock it off (nicely of course; no threats or violence) and then replace this old outdated highly dysfunctional paradigm which was born in the limbic brains of psychiatry with the paradigm of equality of being. Yes, I know, I can hear you thinking[1]: “Psychiatry giving up the domination bit? Why that woman MUST be mad if she thinks that is ever going to happen.”

We need to shift this system from aggression/submission/compliance to assertive/boundaries/self restraint for ALL people, the psychiatrists included.  Do you see the difference this makes?
The current style is the system's ‘bi-polar disorder.” What is more extreme emotionally speaking, than aggression on one side and the submission that goes with ‘compliance’ on the other?

What we all need is the right to self direction with boundaries; that means one side is about self definition and the other side is self restrain. So instead of bouncing back and forth between two extremes as most people do now[2], we learn to get into our own stable centre and then operate our lives from that point onward and outward by the same principle. This is a stable mode of being and comes from the “I” mode or relating whenever necessary. Most of us already know it one thing to say ‘you’ when we are talking intimately with someone who knows us and quite another when we are trying to relate to most others. Most of us for example cannot even imagine saying, “you’re crazy’ to a psychiatrist, despite the strong urge to do so, yet we can imagine saying it to a truly close friend. I guess you might say I am sort of suggesting we make psychiatrists our new best buds! (Anyone want to start a group eye roll here?)

Let’s start by going for the obvious since that is what is so hard for most people to see. We need to talk about those things. We need to make statements like, “ALL human beings want to have some control over our own destinies; ALL of us. That IS our common ground. It is the common principle upon which we must base all that we do for both self AND others.”

Words have the power to change us if we use them effectively and make it our goal to appeal to everyone as a unique part of the collective whole. I am inventing a new word for this kind of relating to be used as a complementary partner to the term “dialogics”. Logic does not penetrate illogic as illogic is emotion based; not reason based. So when it is not logical, and most of you psychiatrized have come to understand that part, then it is emotional.   When we see and hear that, it is then time to engage in ‘Diamotion.’  Definition: emotional connection between two interacting people or groups. 
So first then we understand what is REALLY going on with the protagonist(s) and then we react to it very differently. I want to point out something here and to clearly define it.
We are dealing with a power ‘over’ model in this system which habitually excuses in itself the SAME traits it defines as ‘flaws’  or ‘symptoms’ in those it is determined to suppress and  control for exhibiting those ‘flaws.’ This fact is a part of the confusion. We need to be ever conscious of this and also to be conscious of it’s built in self justification. I’m doing ‘this’ to ‘them’ because ‘they’ are ‘sick’ and ‘they’ need me to do this. I (we) are not ‘sick’ so that makes it OK for us to do this to ‘them.’
The system if filled with this kind of double standard and no one needs to be controlled by it for very long to get the picture on that. However, it is not often seen, heard and understood by those DOING it. You may find that hard to believe but it’s true. This is part of the blind spot inside the system. Splitting reality into a sane/insane idea has much to do with the reason WHY those who have identified themselves as ‘the sane ones’ cannot see and hear themselves actually DOING what they would call crazy if someone else was doing it to them. They see it all as ‘different.’

One of the things that is helping to change this is bringing the experiences of psychiatric survivours out into the public view by filming this type of talk in the first person. Part of psychiatry’s all consuming power has come from the one sided point of view presented BY them FOR their own promotion. The psychiatrized are routinely silenced by various means such as intimidation, shows of ‘authority’ and emotional suppression of the psychiatrized by drugs or other means.  Most people don’t know anyone who is labelled, with whom they talk as equals. In fact, when most people who think of themselves as ‘normal’ find out that someone is labelled, they automatically begin to treat that person ‘as if’ they were ‘crazy’ which usually is understood to be the same as unconscious or stupid. We have all been well and thoroughly patronized by just such people haven’t we?
Filming survivours as people works by connecting people emotionally. It creates “Diamotion.” We are dealing though, with a system that is ever mindful about promoting its own agenda, so ‘they’ like to film the converted compliant consumer only. This system is not geared to open debate; quite the contrary. In fact, it prefers to completely ignore and invalidate the point of view or any of us who it describes as “non compliant resistant survivours” who ‘deny’ we are ‘sick’ in the “medical” sense and who as a result of our opinions oppose the ‘power over’ model of the ‘help’ as it is offered. When the system talks to us about this it is vague, abstract and usually condescending as hell so be aware of that and always pin them down to concrete answers. If they try to put you off (and they usually will) by claiming that it’s “obvious”, take the opportunity to remind them of their own beliefs about YOU: as they say of “us”, “We have to be very concrete with ‘them’ or ‘they’ won’t understand. If you feel safe as an individual, in your particular situation, perhaps you could even suggest they continue to ‘humour’ you.

More suggestions on dealing with the ‘help’ will be posted here on the Personal Empowerment Page as time permits so stay tuned in and don’t give up. You are definitely not alone in this and the more you connect, the more it will amaze you how many people all over the world actually share your experience. 

[1]  Metaphorically speaking of course....
[2]  Aggressive/submissive, superior/inferior

No comments: