The Pathologizing Concept – James Hillman – Part 1

“The problem that was at the forefront of my interest and my research was the following: what goes on in the mind of the mentally ill person?” (JUNG, 2006, p. 141)

There are countless challenges that professionals in the psychological field must face in order to reach the sphere of suffering of the other, and only then, exercise as little help as possible. I would like to bring to the field of discussion the controversial concept of “pathologizing” by James Hillman. And in this way reflect about our understanding of what the disease actually is, or, if we can call it that way.

Pathologizing as a new perspective between health and disease

In the work Re-seeing Psychology, James Hillman proposes a bold and uncomfortable observation regarding the phenomena of the psyche. For this new way of looking at health and disease, he problematizes the question of the current model of psychotherapy, and the way we face what is health and what is disease. The referred author draws our attention to the diagnostic denominations and to the medical model to which we are subject, in which there is a search for the classification and framing of the patient in an unhealthy form.

This model looks at the phenomena of the psyche, looking for what is wrong with the human, and then packaging it in specific terminology.

“The word pathology, which we use for these problematic experiences, alone demonstrates the role that medicine plays in psychology’s view of the psyche.” (HILLMAN 2010, p. 133).

He argues that psychology needs to be reformulated in terms of how to face the pathological, because what is presented as a complaint by the patient may not be a disease in the medical sense. Hillman (2010) questions the validity of this model (which ended up contaminating psychology), considering a treatment based on this type of approach as ineffective and insufficient, since the patient does not respond well to it.

He further problematizes the issue by criticizing other models, such as the religious one, which tries to look at the issue of “mental illness” as a disorder of spirituality, a disconnected or frustrated spirituality. Hillman points us to the idea that if we suffer, it is because we are sick, or because we are sinners, and our healing lies in advances either in science or in faith.

However, in both cases, our view of disease or sin is blurred with the notion that pathologizing is wrong, that disease and sin are not part of the human sphere, and therefore need to be extracted or exorcised.

According to this author, so that we can get closer to the psychology of pathology again, there must be a paradigm shift regarding the way of seeing what is disease and what is health. To do so, Hillman develops a concept that generates a certain strangeness. He gives the name of pathologizing, and defends that pathology is part of the very expression of the psyche, as if what is natural for the soul were the movement of pathologization, of creating diseases, morbidities, abnormalities, of having flaws and disturbances of any kind or behavior.

So that the psyche can manifest itself in all its greatness, it produces pathologizing fantasies so that the human can experience the deformed and distressed perspectives inherent to himself.

At first, this proposal puts us, in a way, against Hillman, because the strangeness of this statement does not allow such a simple acceptance. But on the other hand, if we take into account that our vision for this subject is contaminated by the medical and religious notion, we can begin to better understand Hillman’s conception and, perhaps, to agree with him.

I invite the reader to try for a few moments, to suspend the preconceived judgment that these models have established in us, so that we can listen and try to understand what this controversial author presents to us.

Hillman (2010), with this observation of medical and religious models, in no way wants to replace or question the authenticity of the ideas of sin and disease in these perceptions. But first, see through them, keeping them only as perspectives and not as truths.

Considering Hillman’s idea as a new perspective, the concept of pathologizing creates a new meaning for the denomination of a healthy and sick individual. “If we were able to discover its psychological need, pathologizing would no longer be wrong or right, but simply necessary, involving purposes that we have not well understood, and values ​​that necessarily need to present themselves in a distorted way” (HILLMAN 2010, p. 135 ).

Continue reading by clicking here: The Pathologizing Concept – James Hillman – Part 2

Related