Thanks for adding some seasoning to this David. It's a theme which is emerging in my mind, and it's a personal reflection which warrants some generalisation, but people are never general or average.
I'm really glad someone is writing about this Michael. I worked in mental health many years ago and we went out of our way to avoid labelling people. "Treat the person, not the diagnosis," was our mantra. We were working with people who were acutely unwell and for whom labels could result in stigma and worsening of symptoms through isolation and anxiety.
Now people seem to have swung the other way. I find it odd to hear someone referring to themselves as 'ADHD' or 'OCD.' So say "I am...." is to identify as a condition which has its roots in clinical diagnosis. In a clinical environment, between clinicians, this language can be useful. But to use it as a catchall in the broader environment is at best vague and at worst downright dangerous.
I do not subscribe to the term 'disorder.' I find it unhelpful and detrimental. A personality or a set of behaviours is not 'disordered' in and of itself. Only in the context of social norms does that set of behaviours become disorders. This means that we are all subject to both internal and external determinants.
However, as you point out, labels can be helpful to help people understand a set of behaviours as 'normal' within the construct of that diagnosis. But the diagnosis is a construct. It is literally a set of behaviours and emotional responses defined by the Diagnostic Service Manual as being a particular 'disorder.'
This is where my greatest fear lies, that people who experience the world in a slightly different way to what society says is 'normal' are medicalized by a system which then profits through the sale of pharmaceuticals. I lived with anxiety depression and all kinds of borderline and attention deficit behaviours for most of my adult life. However, it was only after a head injury and the onset of PTSD that I came to face the childhood roots of these behaviours. I have been fortunate to work with an amazing therapist and unpick the root causes to the extent that I am now living in a truly authentic manner to who I am.
Labels can soothe, as you say. But they can also hold us back and become barriers to doing work necessary for making long lasting change that leads to happiness and a deep connection with self, place and people - no matter who you are.
This is a complex subject and for me there is probably no end result, it is all about having the conversation and recognizing different experiences with compassion and respect.
CAVEAT: I recognise that intensity of experience varies greatly. Some people have severe and enduring conditions and symptoms which require high levels of care. There are parents, families and carers for whom the impact of their situation is a daily struggle.
Thanks for adding some seasoning to this David. It's a theme which is emerging in my mind, and it's a personal reflection which warrants some generalisation, but people are never general or average.
I'm really glad someone is writing about this Michael. I worked in mental health many years ago and we went out of our way to avoid labelling people. "Treat the person, not the diagnosis," was our mantra. We were working with people who were acutely unwell and for whom labels could result in stigma and worsening of symptoms through isolation and anxiety.
Now people seem to have swung the other way. I find it odd to hear someone referring to themselves as 'ADHD' or 'OCD.' So say "I am...." is to identify as a condition which has its roots in clinical diagnosis. In a clinical environment, between clinicians, this language can be useful. But to use it as a catchall in the broader environment is at best vague and at worst downright dangerous.
I do not subscribe to the term 'disorder.' I find it unhelpful and detrimental. A personality or a set of behaviours is not 'disordered' in and of itself. Only in the context of social norms does that set of behaviours become disorders. This means that we are all subject to both internal and external determinants.
However, as you point out, labels can be helpful to help people understand a set of behaviours as 'normal' within the construct of that diagnosis. But the diagnosis is a construct. It is literally a set of behaviours and emotional responses defined by the Diagnostic Service Manual as being a particular 'disorder.'
This is where my greatest fear lies, that people who experience the world in a slightly different way to what society says is 'normal' are medicalized by a system which then profits through the sale of pharmaceuticals. I lived with anxiety depression and all kinds of borderline and attention deficit behaviours for most of my adult life. However, it was only after a head injury and the onset of PTSD that I came to face the childhood roots of these behaviours. I have been fortunate to work with an amazing therapist and unpick the root causes to the extent that I am now living in a truly authentic manner to who I am.
Labels can soothe, as you say. But they can also hold us back and become barriers to doing work necessary for making long lasting change that leads to happiness and a deep connection with self, place and people - no matter who you are.
This is a complex subject and for me there is probably no end result, it is all about having the conversation and recognizing different experiences with compassion and respect.
Allt he best,
David Stone.
CAVEAT: I recognise that intensity of experience varies greatly. Some people have severe and enduring conditions and symptoms which require high levels of care. There are parents, families and carers for whom the impact of their situation is a daily struggle.