COLUMNS
Correspondence
components, with trainees asking for more focus on feedback
rather than scores. This has been previously identified by
Malhotra et al,3 with residents’ perceptions of the WPBA as an
assessment v. educational tool and by the Postgraduate
Medical Education and Training Board (PMETB) itself,4 where
they state that WPBAs must be used formatively and
constructively lest they become no more than hoops to be
jumped through, with the educational validity lost.
As a future consultant, I value the opportunity provided by
WPBAs to discuss cases in a peer group as CbDs are the
cornerstone of professional development and are useful for
developing one’s clinical practice. Given the concern raised by
the PMETB about how WPBAs are used, I would urge the Royal
College of Psychiatrists to learn these lessons and use CbD as
a developmental ‘formative’ tool, with the focus on discussion,
reflection and feedback and not let this become just another
tick-box exercise.
1
Mynors-Wallis L, Cope D, Brittlebank A, Palekar F. Case-based
discussion: a useful tool for revalidation. Psychiatrist 2011; 35: 230-4.
2 Babu KS, Htike MM, Cleak VE. Workplace-based assessments in
Wessex: the first 6 months. Psychiatr Bull 2009; 33: 474-8.
3
Malhotra S, Hatala R, Courneya CA. Internal medicine residents’
perceptions of the Mini-CEX. Med Teacher 2008; 30: 414-9.
4 Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board. Workplace-Based
Assessments: A Guide for Implementation. PMETB, 2009.
Asif M. Bachlani, consultant adult psychiatrist, North East London NHS
Foundation Trust, Mental Health Initial Contact and Assessment Team,
Barking Community Hospital, Essex, UK, email: asifbachlani@doctors.org.uk
doi: 10.1192/pb.35.10.394a
Moving on from old frontiers
The contributions of both Szasz1 and Shorter2 make for
depressing reading. Whereas Shorter never gets away from the
dinosaur concept of mental illness as a mere ‘brain disease’,
Szasz indeed grasps a fraction of the argument that human
behaviour can only be understood and assessed in its cultural
frame settings. But disintegration of those mental frames does
not turn mental illness into a ‘myth’, as Szasz insists, nor is his
disgust for society’s bigotry in any way helpful in disentangling
the constantly changing and complex architecture of how the
patterns of biological circuits and those of social relations
might be inter- or disconnected.
Mental stability is a functioning social construct indeed,
as is a good marriage, a proper education or illuminating
science. All of them are no ‘myth’ and are very much real - yet
not as a substance or an observable object but as a relational
order. The living architecture of those relations and their
complex altering geometries should be at the heart of our
understanding of mental health. Our different levels of
consciousness are not simple representations of the outside
world within our brain. Instead, they are the product of a
creative tension between the stabilised, categorical pattern of
the subject (growing in its complexity - mainly the left brain)
and its social field or its sequences (continuously to be
deconstructed - mainly the right brain).
What is even more crucial, the short-lived entities that
both Gestalt-creating authors are dealing with, are not data in
the empirical sense but symbols throughout. In general science
no one doubts that human nature, our language, mathematics
and our progressing tools of work specification are based on
and experienced as symbolic constructs, confirming the
famous quote of philosopher Ernst Cassirer that man is not the
‘animal rationale’ but the ‘animal symbolicum’.
This is more so highlighted in mental crisis, when in its
course the symbolic matrix breaks down, our pattern-based
construct of reality gets lost, our symbolic language is severely
affected and early elements of magic self-regulation and
previous instinctive drives mix with the patient’s frantic efforts
to calm these powerful forces with his diminished cultural
tools.
All this in mind, one would expect ‘symbolic formation’
and the loss of its complex matrix to play a major role in
psychiatric diagnosis and therapy. But, strange as it is, the
symbolic message has not hit home. The breakdown of
‘symbolic formation’ in our patients continues to be ignored. Its
detectable transcultural codes of experience, its capacity as a
building block of mental equilibrium and its massive impact in
the make-up of healing in group settings remain unused.
This is even more surprising given that neurologist Henry
Head3 had already extensively researched symbol theories in
England during the early 1920s. So did Ernst Cassirer in
Germany. Cassirer thought of extracting underlying patterns
from cultural development in an attempt to find a ‘universal
system of symbolisation’ underlying human consciousness.4
He extended van Uexkuell’s biological circuit which finds
animals adapted to a certain part of their environment by
adding an entirely new quality, which he calls the ‘symbolic
system’. Whereas in animal physiology sense perception is
divided into more v. less variable components, differentiating
basic type-specific patterns from those which are random or
related to just a sole situation, the symbolic approach allows
for the integration of meaning and for its anticipation in
pre-planned social encounter. This unique capacity, however,
is not biologically given but has to be drawn up in constant
interaction by using a mental - symbolic - membrane,
separating, selective, connective and protective at the same
time, securing its architectural codes in a semantic link with
external signs and objects. Thus, the multitude of human
activities emerges from a limited number of ‘symbolic forms’
such as magic, myth, religion, law, science, the arts and a few
others - while their underlying pattern can be used again and
again - in endlessly changed settings.
Cassirer published his findings in a remarkable study,
Psychopathology of Symbolic Consciousness (1929), which
took its strength from intense clinical and theoretical
discussions with neurologist Kurt Goldstein, psychologist
Kurt Lewin and psychiatrist Ludwig Binswanger. Translated into
clinical terms, this approach leads to a different understanding
of the multilayered architecture of mental health (which
German psychiatrist Blankenburg termed natuerliche
Selbstverstaendlichkeit ) integrating biological with social
patterns. It allows for a sustainable point of reference in
defining ‘mental illness’ and it might help us understand the as
yet unexplained symptom changes during the course of
treatment.
Seen from this ‘symbolic’ angle, mental health can be
defined as the human ability to stabilise early patterns of
personal experience, to successfully create, change and
integrate ‘symbolic forms‘ of social interaction, while
395
COLUMNS
Correspondence
establishing an equilibrium between the demands and intentions of self-regulation and environment, adding its newly
found results to the human tradition.5
Mental illness is the inability to stabilise and/or integrate
one’s own pattern of behaviour into a social framework, leading
to a breakdown of (different and multiple) layers of ‘symbolic
formation’, while the balance between cultural interaction and
the emergence of inner preformed pattern is continuously (or
constantly) changed towards the latter.
Clinical psychiatry is entitled to move on from Szasz’s and
Shorter’s outdated theories, yet it is well advised to strengthen
its focus on semiotic and symbolic research. This may direct us
towards a ‘science of meaning’ (salience), beyond a mere
biological function and to integrate these important sources of
knowledge into the regular discourse of our discipline.
1
Szasz T. The myth of mental illness: 50 years later. Psychiatrist 2011; 35:
179-82.
2 Shorter E. Still tilting at windmills. Commentary on . . . The myth of
mental illness. Psychiatrist 2011; 35: 183-4.
3
Head H. Disorders of symbolic thinking and expression. Br J Psychol
1921; XI: 179-93.
4 Cassirer E. The psychopathology of symbolic thinking. In The Philosophy
of Symbolic Forms. Volume Three: The Phenomenology of Knowledge. Yale
University Press, 1957.
5 Andersch N. Symbolic form and Gestalt: Ernst Cassirer’s contribution to
a ‘matrix of mental formation’. Gestalt Theory 2007; 29: 279-93.
Norbert J. H. Andersch, consultant psychiatrist and neurologist,
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK,
email: norbert.andersch@slam.nhs.uk
doi: 10.1192/pb.35.10.395
Correction
The NHS, the private sector and the future (letter). The
Psychiatrist 2011; 35: 354. The last line of this letter is
inaccurate: the Winterbourne Hospital is owned and operated
by BMI Healthcare and is a completely separate organisation
396
that has no connection to the care home owned by Castlebeck
called The Winterbourne View. We apologise for this error.
doi: 10.1192/pb.35.10.396