What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him? Psalms 8:4

Schizophrenia known in antique as dementia praecox has now been widely understood as a split personality and this view is proffered mainly by the bio-medical approach to the understanding of schizophrenia. It is from this definitional approach that biological regiments of treatment have been proffered so as to correct this split personality. It is my submission that schizophrenia cannot be defined. Secondly it is my further submission that the thin definition of schizophrenia as a split personality is a source of iatrogenic harm to persons labelled as such. Thirdly I further submit that such a medical definition mystifies madness or anomalous experiences, it does this by closing out to richer and thick descriptions of what madness is.

The axiomatic evidence which is so often brought to the fore by bio-medical proponents in schizophrenia studies demands an immediate moratorium. The moratorium should stand to such a period that sound science research replaces the current pseudo-science in schizophrenia studies. The other dilemma which the definition of split personality has plunged persons into is the absolving of politics and society as non causal of schizophrenia, yet they remain implicated in sound research of madness studies. The bio-centric views in schizophrenia often make claims that schizophrenia is endogenous thus within persons. They often state the stress diathesis model by claiming that stress in life only triggers the condition which is latent within one. The bio-medical definition of schizophrenia chides structural explanations of schizophrenia which are political and social aspects of life in its pragmatic sense. It further hides from the general populace that everyone is vulnerable to psychosis, that given the adequate untoward, unusual adverse events of life anyone can be psychotic. Biomedical explanations to schizophrenia impinges the understanding that the brain is designed to react to the environment and that what it terms schizophrenia is just a reaction of the brain towards untoward events which grace life.

The other challenge with conceptualizing ‘schizophrenia’ madness as a split personality is its implication that the mind is just but a series of interconnections of nerves or neurotransmitters. While the mind has a physiology make up of interconnection, it also has the soul and the spirit. Hence explaining the mind as a sheer connection of the brain’s physiological make up becomes mendacity in that it clearly obscures the truth of the reality of the soul and spirit. It is actually within the soul and spirit that when violated that madness often results. Writer of the book ‘Rape of the Soul’ Ty Colbert stated in the book that madness is a result of a wounded soul and or spirit. Hence as the realities of madness are obscured it follows that proper care will not be followed in favour of the prescribed psychosis drugs after a biomedical conceptualization of schizophrenia. Bert Karon in the article ‘Tragedy of schizophrenia’ cited by Colbert (2001) substantiates that individuals diagnosed schizophrenia are not given proper care thus effective psychotherapy.

It should be lucid that what is termed schizophrenia demands issues to be dealt with from a non biological aperture. The current regiment of treatment which follows a biological definition of schizophrenia impinges real emotional resolve.Colbert (2001p14) is of the view that the neuroleptic regiment of treatment disables the brain and prevents the soul of its fullness what he states as ‘rape’. Cohen (1997) view neuroleptic drugs as interfering with the ability to learn and apply skills to a non medicated state. This works in this way the neuroleptic works by disassociating the person from the emotional pain. Nancy Andreasen popularly known for categorising positive and negative symptoms of psychosis is of the view that psychotropic medication blocks pre-frontal cortex area of the brain which takes in emotional aspects. Hence it follows from these arguments that the neuroleptics which follows the conceptualisation of schizophrenia as a biological illness numbs the brain and does not in any respect treat the wounded soul and or spirit which is often embodied as emotional pain.

The paper’s prayer is that the ethical principles especially of first do no harm and of client beneficence are upheld in letter and spirit of the words. The paper also hopes that such can be achieved as professionals in mental health view madness from broader richer explanations. A move is required from the jaundiced eye of biomedical approach of schizophrenia which so often without success seeks to objectify and quantify human suffering via its conceptualization of schizophrenia as a biological phenomenon. Notwithstanding the fact that schizophrenia cannot be defined, as madness can also not be defined. I submit that a richer explanation of madness ‘schizophrenia’ which in cooperates how socio-political effects which are often thought as distal wounds the spirit and soul of the human mind. In this, while richer and broader explanations of madness cannot bring us to its definition. It can however bring clarity on the workings of madness, thereby demystify the subject of madness which is ever resident in polemic debates. It is from a truthful account that we hope functional outcomes which are better as those from moral treatment, Kingsly Hall of R.D Laing, Soteria House of Loren Mosher can be replicated in the lives of those living with madness.

Prosper K Mushauri