A newer version of the platform is available. Please refresh the page.
Sign Up to Get information about Sales & Events Click Here
A newer version of the platform is available. Please refresh the page.
Copyright by Dr. Daniels. Posted by permission. Originally posted at https://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/laingsummary.html.
Ronald D. Laing’s work wascentered on understanding and treating schizophrenic patients. Hecould perhaps best be termed an “existential psychiatrist.” Indeed,one of his early books was on Jean-Paul Sartre, and he used conceptsfrom Sartre, Hegel and others in endeavoring to conceptualize thelife and world of the schizophrenic. Laing himself grew up in abizarre family setting. His parents forbid him to go out of the housealone or play with other children until middle childhood, theyrepeatedly conveyed the message to him that he was “evil,” and whenhe went out with them he was kept on a leash with a harness. Hischildhood environment was such as to cause him severe confusion aboutwhich thoughts and feelings were his own, and which were “mappedonto” him by his environment. As an adult, he was himselfschizophrenic for periods of time, spending some time as a patient inpsychiatric wards. As such, he gained a perspective on schizophreniawhich was unusual and perhaps even unique for a psychiatrist. Thatis, he truly understood what the schizophrenic’s world looked likefrom the inside, as well as from the outside. He also had gained,from his own experience, a sense of the kind of situations in family,school, etc., that could drive a person crazy.
A sane response to an insane situation. This is Laing’scomment about what “going crazy” entailed. Applying Gregory Bateson’sconcept of the double bind, in which anything a person does leads toone or another kind of punishing consequence, he observed that somechildren are faced with the dilemma of having an identity defined forthem that is fundamentally different from who they experiencethemselves to be. Their alternatives are to either give up theparental approval and caretaking they need to survive, in order to betruly themselves, or to give up their own sense of their identity andcomply with parental demands. Faced with this dilemma, most peoplechoose to give up their own identities and adopts those that arehanded to them by parental figures. In some people faced with thissituation, the response is to “go crazy.” This is analogous to beinginside a tunnel which represents what are normally considered “sane”thoughts, actions, and feelings, finding that moving in eitherdirection leads to painful experiences (giving up self, or giving upthe other), and in response breaking through the ceiling of thetunnel into what is considered insanity. (I think, although I am notcertain, that this analogy is mine rather than Laing’s.)
Interest in the subjective experience of the schizophrenic.Given his own background, Laing was able to perceive how patheticallylimited and inadequate the conventional psychiatric definitions ofschizophrenia are. They are largely “looking at” from outside, andcapture little of the schizophrenic’s own experience. Laing tried tocapture the structure of the schizophrenic experience in “The DividedSelf,” written when he was only twenty-eight years old. Later hewould characterize that early work as too much in an “us-them” mode.His later work explored the nature of relationships and the workingsof schizophrenogenic families. He also included many observations onthe way in which school and other social institutions imprison bothchildren and adults in situations that confuse them about their ownthoughts and feelings, induce them to think they have the sociallyapproved thoughts and feelings that others want them to, and as aconsequenc drive them crazy.
Treatment of the schizophrenic. Laing established atreatment facility in a London suburb which housed, I think, aboutfifteen or twenty schizophrenic patients and several live-inpsychiatric staff persons. (I’m not sure about that number.) Patientswere given no drugs, They were provided with support in the form ofdaily group therapy, individual therapy, and ongoing interaction withstaff. Staff members were careful to accept the subjective validityof the schizophrenic’s experience of the world. In addition, therewas reality-testing in the form of feedback from other group members.No drugs were administered. In Laing’s view, drugs make it moredifficult for a person to think and therefore interfere with the kindof personal work that can lead to true recovery. I read one casehistory of a member of the psychiatric staff who shared a room withone patient who defecated in the room and often screamed apparentlyuncontrollably. Laing’s approach took the existential view that eachperson, including the schizophrenic is ultimately responsible for hisor her own behavior, and ultimately his or her own recovery. Heviewed his role as that of providing conditions that would facilitatethat recovery. For a time there were a number of treatment facilitiesaround the world that followed the Laingian model. To the best of myknowledge, today it has been largely abandoned, both because it isvery expensive in terms of professional time and effort and drugs arecheaper and can be administered by poorly paid ward personnel, andbecause the psychiatric establishment is committed to a medical modelrather than an existential model.
The situation has to be discovered: “We can never assumethat the people in the situation know what the situation is. There isno a priori reason to believe or disbelieve a story anyone tells us.Different people usually have different stories about a situation. Apsychiatric “history” of the situation is a sample of the situation.It is a story, one person’s way of defining the situation. “Fewpsychiatrists are experts in sorting out these stories. They areexperts in construing situations of a few standard psychiatricmyths.” (politics of the family, p. 33-4)
Family resistance: Laing notes that he often finds that what he thinks is going on in a family bears almost no resemblance to what anyone in the family expriences or thinks is happening. Often “there is concerted family resistance to discovering what is going on, and there are complicated strategems to keep everyone in the dark.” (politics of the family, p. 77)
Metaphors for a family. “The family may be imagined as a web, a flower, a tomb, a prison, a castle,” writes Laing. We may be more aware of our image of the family than of the family itself.
Complementarity: “That feature of relatedness whereby theother is required to fulfill or complete the self.”
Confirmation: Some sign of recognition by another personthat is relevant to an evocative act. This may include disapproval.”Every relationship. . . implies a definition of self by others andother by self. . . A person’s ‘own’ identity can never be completelyabstracted from his identity-for-others.” (Self and Others)
Pseudo-confirmation. Acts that masquerade as confirmation,but are counterfeit. For example, I define who you are, then confirmyour behavior and being that conforms with my definition.
Tangential responses: Those that deal with some aspect of aperson’s behavior other than those the person is concerned with.
Mystification: Misdefinition of the issues. A plausiblemisrepresentation of what the exploiters do to the exploited.
The situation has to be discovered: “We can never assumethat the people in the situation know what the situation is. There isno a priori reason to believe or disbelieve a story anyone tells us.Different people usually have different stories about a situation. Apsychiatric “history” of the situation is a sample of the situation.It is a story, one person’s way of defining the situation. “Fewpsychiatrists are experts in sorting out these stories. They areexperts in construing situations of a few standard psychiatricmyths.” (politics of the family, p. 33-4)
Mapping: A person “maps” some accepted social definitionof reality onto his or her experience and then acts as if that mapreflects his or her experience. Or else feels terribly oppressed andunseen, if the personal experience is very different from the”mapped” pseudo-experience.
“Call experiential structure A, and public event B. Sometimes theproduct of A and B, in a marriage ceremony, is a marriage. Bothpeople are married in all senses at once. . .
“One function of ritual is to map A onto B at critical moments,for example births, marriage, deaths. In our society many of the oldrituals have lost much of their power. New ones have not arisen.
“To preserve convention, there is a general collusion to disavow Awhen A and B do not match. Anyone breaking this rule is liable toinvalidation. One is not supposed to feel married if one has not beenmarried. Conversely, one is supposed to feel married if one ‘is.’ Ifone goes through a marriage ceremony, and does not feel it is ‘real’,if it dod not ‘take’, there are friends and relative s to say: ‘Don’tworry, I felt the same, my dear. Wait until you have a child. . .Then you will feel you are a mother,’ and so on. . . .
“So one feels, perhaps, frightened or guilty, and probably wishes to disavow A; to take refuge in B, where everything is as everyone says.” (politics of the family, p. 69)
Delusional structures involve a severe mismatch in mapping. In very disturbed people, one finds what may be regarded as delusional structures, still recognizably related to family situations. The reprojection of the ‘family’ is not simply a matter of projecting an ‘internal’ object onto an external person. It is superimposition of one set of relations onto another: the two sets may match more or less. Only if they mismatch sufficiently in the eyes of others, is the operation regarded as psychotic. That is, the operation is not regarded as psychotic per se.
Induction: Projection is done by one person as his ownexperience of the other. Induction is done by one person to theother’s experience. One does not tell him what to be, but tells himwhat he is. Such attributions, in context, are many times morepowerful than orders (or other forms of coercion or persuasion.)” Oneis told one is good, bad, evil, pretty, sexy, etc.
“When attributions have the function of instructions orinjunctions, this function may be denied, giving rise to one type ofmystification, akin to. . . hypnotic suggestion.”
One may tell someone to feel something and not to remember he hasbeen told. Simply tell him he feels it. Better still, tell a thirdparty, in front of him, that he feels it.”
What the parents tell a child “he is, is induction, far morepotent than what they tell him to do. . . . These signals do not tellhim to be naughty; they define what he does as naughty. In this way,he learns that he is naughty, and how to be naughty in his particularfamily.”
“It is not sufficient to say that my wife introjects my mother, ifby projection, and induction, I have manouvered her into such aposition that she actually begins to act, and even to feel, like her,[perhaps] without ever having met her.” (Politics of the family,78-9, 119-20))
In induction the family members seldom know what they are doing.”Often the parents are themselves confused by a child who does x,when they tell him to do y and indicate he is x. “I’m always tryingto get him to make fmore friends, but he is so self-conscious. Isn’tthat right, dear?”
Paradoxical orders: If correctly executed, they aredisobeyed. If they are disobeyed, they are obeyed. “Be spontaneous.””Don’t do what I tell you to.”
We have rules against knowing certain rules. “Rule A:Don’t. Rule A1: Rule A does not exist. Rule A2: Rule A1 does notexist.”
Domain and range. “One can project a minute domain onto avast rainge; or a vast domain onto a minute range. Scale is nodeterrent in practice.”
Psychiatrists as mind-police: “If a and B are incongruent, the mind police (psychiatrists) are caleled in. A crime (illness) is diagnosed. An arrest is made and the patient taken into custody (hospitalization). Interviews and investigations follow. A confession may be obtained (patient admits he is ill, displays insight). . . . The sentence is passed (therapy is recommended). He serves his time, comes out, and obeys the law in the future.” This is how the “official story of psychiatric consultation, examination, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment. . . is often experienced.” (politics of the family, p. 74)
Dr. Daniels’ Disclaimer:
I have visited and reviewed all sites to which links are posted, and in many cases have provided a sentence or two of commentary on the site. Items at this site are of varying quality. For the benefit of my students I have posted many of my lecture notes, written quickly just for my own use, complete with numerous typos that I have not had time to correct. These are open to the public and you can take them as they are. I post items when and as I can.