Madness can be an adaptation tool and even an unrecognized human quality participating in the success of our species. People differ mentally as much as they differ physically. There can be great power in this, says psychiatrist Michael A. Schwartz.
Marcin Moskalewicz: Does mental illness exist?
Michael A. Schwartz: Well… yes and no. I am a psychiatrist and I believe that madness really exists, but it is not simply an illness or group of illnesses. I would rather compare it to tallness. At a certain point, you become so tall that you can’t work onboard an airplane as a flight attendant because you’d have to slouch or hit your head, and that’s when suffering appears. This suffering can be accompanied by medical complications, but not necessarily. Others often suffer as well. And we don’t have a simple blood test that would define the limits of so-called mental illnesses. They are not the mental equivalent of somatic diseases. This is one of the features that makes psychiatry so different.
Tallness is one-dimensional, while people are multidimensional.
The main point here is that we are incredibly diverse. We think and act differently. It’s difficult to draw a line between proper and improper thinking or behavior. Especially since seemingly “abnormal” behavior can turn out to be effective if we change its context. Madness can be an adaptation tool, and the ability to adapt is one factor behind our success as a species. People differ mentally as much as they differ physically. There is great power in that.
And what about suffering?
Yes, suffering can be intense. But the topic is complex and deserves much thought and conversation. Humans are an incredibly diverse species. Our limitations are simultaneously our assets… Circumstances can change, affording significant advantages at times for some of us and significant disadvantages for others. But all along, we remain one species.
What do the advantages look like in practice?
To get at this topic, let’s put aside the notion of illness for a moment and take a look at human diversity in terms of specific characteristics. We can easily classify ourselves and others in terms of our height on the one hand, and weight on the other. And we can analogically classify ourselves and others in terms of our ability to play roles on the one hand, and our identification with these roles on the other.
The first dimension decides whether you are a good player—how well do you get along with people, how do you make friends, how do you appeal to them? Do you feel you are a good citizen, father or friend? Are you flexible in playing social roles? Is playing difficult for you? I think we can define ourselves in that respect intuitively within a minute, as much as we easily notice that someone is of above-average height. The second dimension defines the degree to which you believe in these games.
