Something's Wrong by Sam Smith
Something’s
Wrong
By
Sam Smith
‘Insanity - a perfectly rational
adjustment to an insane world.’
R.D. Laing
This book is
written from the wealth of its author’s own experience as a worker in the UK’s mental
health care system, although in the end we’re left wondering if ‘care’ is the
right word. There is a polemical underpinning to the work, which is expressed
forcefully in an Afterword to the narrative, in which the shortcomings and
anomalies of the mental health care system are laid bare and a plea made for
urgent reform.
The narrative takes
the form of a transcription of tape recordings made by Robert, aged around 50
when he begins them. What the tapes contain is, of course, always and entirely his narrative, his thoughts, his
perspective. The reader is drawn so tightly into Robert’s thoughtscape that at
times one could almost feel worn down by it, and yearn for relief from its
sheer intensity.
Since being diagnosed, at nineteen, as
a paranoid schizophrenic, Robert has been through all the labyrinthine highways
and byways of ‘The System’, including at times being Sectioned as being a
danger to himself and others, at others being given limited freedom under
so-called ‘supervision.’ He has experienced every known treatment and therapy,
from drugs to electrotherapy. He is, indeed, a walking encyclopaedia on
everything ‘The System’ has to offer those diagnosed mentally ill.
When the
narrative begins, Robert is living in a care facility where he is permitted a
degree of freedom. As the recorded tapes show, he observes and understands
everything around him, especially his fellow inmates and the ‘carers’ who are
employed to supervise them. It becomes painfully clear that ‘caring’, in any
meaningful sense of that word, is not mostly what happens; the inadequacies of
an extensive cast of ‘carers ‘ is detailed, from the down-right callous to the
well-meaning, but ineffectual, social worker.
From the
beginning, Robert is telling himself that something is wrong but is unable to
quite put his finger on what that is. In making his tape recordings, he is
determinendly, and ultimately successfully, thinking his way back to some form
of normality. What we gradually learn is that what is wrong is the whole system to
which he has been subjected and within
which he has been ensnared. The regime of drugs and other therapies, far from
‘curing’ him, have served only to confirm the first diagnosis of the
professionals: that he is mentally ill, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
As the narrative proceeds we are invited to question and meditate on our own
perceptions of ‘insanity’ and ‘normality.’
Through the
transcription of the tapes we begin to get a picture of Robert’s early life and
the reasons for his being diagnosed as mentally ill. We discover that he was
the only child of his parents: father a sensible, responsible man who, as
Robert eventually realizes, loved his son very much, albeit in an
undemonstrative way. His mother, on the other hand, is revealed as over-doting,
indulging him to the extent of tolerating, indeed encouraging, him in
uninhibited horse-play. It becomes clear that she is, in part at least, the
reason for Robert’s later behaviour and his failure to recognize limits. (The
fact that she later hangs herself, unable to face up to Robert’s offence and
its consequences, indicates that she was always unstable.) So when, at
nineteen, he is involved in a fight outside a pub with another lad, he doesn’t
know when to stop. As he puts it: how do you know when the other one isn’t going
to get up and hit you again? As a result his opponent is badly injured, to the
extent that he will spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair. Retribution is
inevitable, but Robert has a history of other incidents of abnormal behaviour –
the most serious being the occasion when he tied his mother up to a chair and
sat by her until his father came home to release her. As a result, instead of being
sent to prison for inflicting grievous bodily harm (in which case, he bitterly
reflects, he would by the time he is recording these tapes have served his
sentence and been a free man) he is diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic and
sent to a secure unit. As the tapes proceed, we gain the impression that he
really is manic in his obsessive
attention to detail, and he also refers to episodes of past manic behaviour.
The question, always, is to what extent the treatment he has been receiving is
the cause of his behaviour rather
than the other way round.
In his observations
of his life and times Robert comes across as eminently sane; he observes and comments
on many features of contemporary life which, looked at objectively, are pretty strange: the ways people
dress, the ways they behave. As well as the mental health system, property
developers, lawyers, the state of our towns and homelessness are all critically
examine – and mostly found wanting. I particularly enjoyed his critique of The
Saturday Guardian, which he describes as ‘heavy’, with all its supplements and
sections, but in which: ‘Every week the same. Like an empty bowl that has to be
filled, week after week, but with words. Like a nervous chatterbox filling time
with nonsense talk. No, not nonsense; but chirping away about things of little
importance. Saying for the sake of saying.’ Amen to that!
So, how does
Robert’s story end? It is not an easy resolution. He finally understands that
the only way to escape the clutches of the system is to become entirely
invisible; to disappear; to live outside any possibility of discovery. Since his
whole journey through the mental health care system has been a series of
encounters with the mentally ill, the addicted, the rejected, through them he
has learnt the lessons which enable him to slip out of sight and to live
outside any conceivable system. In other words, he learns how to efface himself
completely.
Anyone who
lived, and read, through the 1960s will remember people like R.D. Laing and
Thomas Szasz, both of whom became gurus of alternative thinking about what was
termed ‘mental illness.’ Laing
stressed the role of society, and particularly the family, in the development of
"madness" - his term. His rejection of the medicalisation of mental
illness almost certainly went too far in denying the influence of biological or chemical causes of what was
termed ‘madness’; in any case, Laing was largely discredited in his life-time,
both for his ideas and because of his alcoholism and his drug-taking. Never the
less, his ideas do still have resonance and there are those who adhere to them.
In 2004 The International R.D. Laing Institute was established in Switzerland as ‘a meeting place for all those interested
in the psychotherapeutic approach of and its theoretical reflections by
R.D.Laing.’ Laing defined insanity
as ‘a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.’ Robert could be seen
as a case in point, with his confusing childhood experiences, followed by a
regime of treatment which not only didn’t ‘cure’ him, but arguably made him
worse. Laing also claimed that ‘There is no such condition as “schizophrenia,”
but the label is a social fact and the social fact a political event.’
When Thomas Szasz wrote: "If you talk
to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the
dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a
schizophrenic" he summed up
what he saw as society’s ambivalent and illogical attitude to mental illness.
Although he strongly opposed Laing’s ‘counter-cultural’ stand and the whole
anti-psychiatry movement, he also rejected the ‘medicalisation’ of mental
illness. No doubt many, if not most, contemporary
mental health practitioners would take issue with the notion that mental
illness is entirely a response to one’s environment, which seems too simplistic;
more recent research indicates that
chemical and hormonal influences on the brain may have greater influence than people
like Laing or Szasz would ever have considered.
Nonetheless, the question remains: was Robert mad or was he driven mad?
Sam Smith's books here: http://samsmithbooks.weebly.com/
Sam Smith's books here: http://samsmithbooks.weebly.com/
2 comments:
I remember reading r d laing's Sanity, Madness and the Family when I was in my 30's (on holiday on the beach!) and thinking that what he said made a lot of sense. But then, what do I know?
What do any of us know? But R.D. Laing's ides and methods aren't discredited by everyone - babies and bathwater come to mind! His notion of self-help was perhaps limited by the need for an awareness in the sufferer that something is wrong and the will to try to put it right.
In a personal message, Sam Smith said this:
'You were right to cite RD Laing. His initial ideas were valid, as many psychologists have maintained since. Self-help though does require insight. That insight does not require intellect. What it does require is the patient to acknowledge that something is wrong and to seek a means, a method, of overcoming their hallucinations. An artist might paint their 'voices' out, and keep them on the canvas. A carpenter might go to his shed and hammer for an hour, or take the dog for a long walk... '
Myself, I am of the dog-walking persuasion as a means to chase off the blues!
Post a Comment