You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
In 1960 the psychiatrist Thomas Szasz published an essay with an incendiary title — "The Myth of Mental Illness" — arguing that the whole concept of mental illness was a mistake. Fifty years later, in 2011, he returned to the argument in a short paper reviewing what half a century had, and had not, changed his mind about. That 2011 paper is the prescribed key research for the "Alternatives to the medical model" topic of the OCR Issues in Mental Health section, and it is the philosophical spearhead of the whole anti-medical-model case. This lesson covers it in the depth OCR's core-study format allows — its argument, aim, and evaluation — and then turns to the topic's Application strand: the non-biological treatment of one disorder. We examine three such treatments (cognitive behavioural therapy, systematic desensitisation, and psychoanalysis), each flowing from a psychological explanation you have already studied. Szasz and the non-biological treatments belong together because both express the same conviction: that the problems the medical model calls "illnesses" are better understood, and better addressed, as problems of living, learning and thought. The citation is Szasz, T. (2011), The myth of mental illness: 50 years later, The Psychiatrist, 35, 179–182.
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 03, Section A topic | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| Szasz (2011): mental illness as metaphor/social construct | Alternatives — KEY RESEARCH (Szasz) | AO1 knowledge; AO3 evaluation |
| Szasz's argument and its evaluation | Key research — the myth of mental illness | AO1; AO2; AO3 |
| Non-biological treatment: CBT (mechanism, effectiveness) | Alternatives — non-biological treatment of one disorder (Application) | AO1; AO2 |
| Systematic desensitisation and psychoanalysis (mechanism, effectiveness) | Alternatives — non-biological treatment | AO1; AO3 |
The specification is referenced descriptively throughout; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for the exact published wording. This lesson develops AO1 (Szasz's argument and the non-biological treatments), AO2 (applying a treatment to a novel case and relating it to an explanation) and AO3 (evaluating Szasz's thesis and the effectiveness of non-biological treatment). Szasz's argument is a real philosophical position, presented accurately and without invented quotation.
Thomas Szasz (1920–2012) was, unusually, a professor of psychiatry who spent his career attacking the foundations of his own discipline. His original 1961 book The Myth of Mental Illness had made him the most prominent figure of the "anti-psychiatry" movement (though he rejected that label). The aim of the 2011 paper was retrospective and argumentative rather than empirical: to restate and reaffirm, half a century on, his core thesis that "mental illness" is a myth — a metaphor mistaken for a literal medical fact — and to argue that the intervening fifty years of psychiatric and neuroscientific advance had not refuted it.
Szasz's argument turns on a distinction about what the word "illness" properly means. A genuine illness or disease, he argued, is a demonstrable bodily abnormality — a lesion, an infection, a malfunction of an organ that can, in principle, be identified physically (the syphilis-causes-general-paresis case of the first lesson is his kind of real disease, precisely because it has a bodily cause). "Mental illness", by contrast, is a label applied not to a proven bodily lesion but to problems in living — to thoughts, feelings and behaviours that deviate from social or ethical norms. To call these an "illness" is, Szasz insisted, to use the word metaphorically — as we might say an economy is "sick" or a joke is "sick" — and then to forget that it is a metaphor and treat it as literal medical fact. That, for Szasz, is the myth: the reification of a metaphor.
Several consequences follow, which OCR expects you to grasp:
Szasz did not deny that people suffer, behave strangely, or need help. His claim was about the concept of illness and its misuse — that framing problems of living as diseases is a philosophical error with real consequences for liberty and responsibility. He favoured treating psychological distress through voluntary, contractual relationships (help sought, not imposed) rather than coercive medicine.
It helps to see why Szasz cared so intensely about what might look like a mere quarrel over the word "illness", because the stakes for him were moral and political, not academic. In ordinary medicine, calling something an illness carries a cluster of implications: the sufferer is not responsible for having it, they are entitled to care, and — crucially — a doctor may sometimes be justified in treating them even against their momentary wishes, as when an unconscious patient is operated on. Szasz's fear was that transplanting this cluster of implications from bodily disease, where a physical lesion justifies them, to "problems of living", where no such lesion exists, hands the state and the psychiatric profession an enormous and dangerous power: the power to override a competent adult's liberty in the name of "treating" them, on the strength of a judgement that their thoughts or conduct deviate from what society finds acceptable. Involuntary commitment was, for Szasz, the sharp end of this — a deprivation of liberty that, if imposed on a person who had broken no law, he regarded as closer to imprisonment than to medicine, but dressed in medicine's benevolent language. Equally, he worried that the "sick role" could erode personal responsibility, offering people an excuse to disown conduct that is properly theirs. Whether or not one accepts these conclusions — and many find them too sweeping — they show that Szasz's target was never the reality of suffering but the transfer of medical authority to a domain he thought it did not fit. Understanding this motivation is what lets a student evaluate his argument fairly rather than caricaturing it as a claim that "mental illness isn't real", which he never quite made.
A useful way to hold Szasz in relation to the rest of the course is to see him as the philosophical counterpart to Rosenhan's empirical critique. Rosenhan showed, by experiment, that psychiatric diagnosis in practice was unreliable, context-driven and dehumanising; Szasz argued, by analysis, that the very concept of mental illness was a metaphor mistaken for a fact. The two dovetail: Rosenhan's demonstration that "sane" and "insane" could not be reliably told apart is exactly the kind of evidence one would expect if, as Szasz claimed, the categories encode social judgements rather than objective diseases. Both, too, converge on the ethical worry about power — Rosenhan's wards stripped patients of personhood, Szasz's argument targets the authority to detain and treat. Where they can be pulled apart is on the biological evidence: Rosenhan's critique of diagnostic practice survives comfortably alongside an acceptance that schizophrenia has real biological roots, whereas Szasz's stronger claim that mental illness is only metaphor sits far more awkwardly with the genetic loading Gottesman found and the neurochemical and imaging evidence of the medical-model lesson. This is precisely why the balanced verdict treats Szasz as an indispensable corrective to naïve biological reductionism and to psychiatric coercion, rather than as a complete and correct account of the nature of disorder.
Note on method. This "key research" is unusual: it is a theoretical/review paper — an argument, not an experiment with a sample and results. Evaluating it therefore means evaluating the strength of the argument and its evidence and implications, not its methodology in the usual sense — a point examiners expect you to recognise.
Strengths of the argument. Szasz forces a genuine and important conceptual question: is "illness" the right model for psychological distress, or a category error? His social-construction point has real support — psychiatric categories have changed with social values (homosexuality, drapetomania), which is hard to reconcile with the claim that they are purely objective diseases. His warning about psychiatry as social control and the ethics of coercive treatment is a serious and enduring contribution, and it converges with Rosenhan's empirical demonstration that labels and contexts, not objective pathology, drive psychiatric judgements. His emphasis on liberty, responsibility and voluntary help has influenced patients'-rights and anti-coercion movements.
Limitations of the argument. Critics argue Szasz's strict definition of "illness" as necessarily a demonstrable bodily lesion is too narrow and out of step with modern medicine, which accepts many conditions (e.g. some pain or functional disorders) without a simple visible lesion. The biological evidence — the genetic loading Gottesman demonstrated, the neurotransmitter and brain-imaging findings — suggests severe disorders like schizophrenia have real biological components, which sits awkwardly with treating all "mental illness" as mere metaphor. Most seriously, critics charge that denying the illness concept risks harm: it can be read as dismissing the reality of severe suffering, discouraging people from seeking (or accepting) effective treatment, and increasing stigma by implying disorder is a moral or personal failing rather than a condition deserving care. And his account arguably applies far better to milder problems of living than to the most severe, disabling conditions.
Balanced judgement. Szasz's lasting value is philosophical and ethical rather than clinical: he exposes the assumption buried in the medical model — that distress is literally illness — and rightly insists that this is a contestable choice with consequences for liberty and stigma, a point the shifting history of diagnostic categories supports. But his strict lesion-based definition is too narrow given modern biological evidence, and a wholesale rejection of the illness concept risks dismissing real suffering and deterring effective help. The defensible position treats his critique as an essential corrective to naïve biological reductionism rather than as a complete account.
The alternatives topic requires the non-biological treatment of one disorder. Non-biological treatments are the therapies that flow from the psychological explanations: they treat the mind — thought, behaviour, relationships — rather than the brain. Three are central, each mapping onto an explanation from the previous lessons.
The phrase "non-biological treatment" is defined by contrast, and it is worth being clear about what unites this otherwise diverse family and sets it apart from the drugs and ECT of the previous lesson. What they share is a conviction that the way to help a person is to work on their mind — their thoughts, their learned responses, their relationships, their buried conflicts — rather than directly on their brain chemistry or structure. Each therapy is, in effect, the practical arm of one of the psychological explanations: it takes that explanation's account of what has gone wrong and derives from it a method for putting it right. If the trouble is faulty thinking, change the thinking; if it is a learned fear, arrange new learning; if it is a buried conflict, bring it to light; if it is thwarted growth, supply the acceptance that was missing. This is why the treatments cannot be understood in isolation from the explanations that generate them, and why examiners expect you to be able to state, for any non-biological treatment, both its underlying theory and its concrete technique. It is also why these therapies tend to share a common set of strengths (they address the person and their meaning, aim at durable change, and avoid physical side effects) and a common set of limitations (they demand time, effort and the capacity to engage), which the closing evaluation draws together.
Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the therapy of the cognitive explanation (and, in its behavioural component, the behaviourist one). Its rationale is that if disorder is driven by faulty thinking (Beck's negative triad; Ellis's irrational beliefs), then changing that thinking should relieve the disorder. In practice the therapist helps the client to identify their negative automatic thoughts and irrational beliefs, to challenge and test them against evidence (a collaborative process sometimes framed as treating thoughts as hypotheses to be examined), and to replace them with more realistic, balanced ones — Ellis's approach disputes irrational "musts"; Beck's helps the client gather evidence against the negative triad. A behavioural element (behavioural activation, homework, gradually re-engaging with rewarding activity) accompanies the cognitive work. CBT is used for depression and anxiety disorders above all.
Effectiveness. CBT is one of the most strongly evidence-supported psychological treatments and is a first-line recommendation for depression and many anxiety disorders. Its distinctive strength over drugs is that, by changing the underlying thinking, it can produce durable change and lower relapse — addressing causes, not just symptoms. Its limitations are that it requires the client's active effort and engagement (it is demanding, and less suitable for those unable to engage, e.g. in acute psychosis), that it may understate genuine adversity by locating the problem in the client's thinking, and that it is more resource-intensive than prescribing a tablet.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.