Hello Open Eyes,
I agree that if we are attempting to have a discussion about a basket of fruit it will be helpful if we are all working from a similar expectation of what an apple, orange or banana are. I understand this can be necessary with people as well. Nonetheless, when it comes to being labelled, not everyone embraces that. Some do. They find comfort and validation of their life experience in the label. As you note, it can be a means of understanding their own experience and a means of explaining the same to others. How the rest of the world responds to that label will vary however, depending on what the label is. There is probably no label with more stigma than that of "schizophrenia".

Though I did finally understand what Paulo was trying to say, I still felt while he did see that some escape through giving into one's mental condition, often that condition is because of some denial ending up in self denial.

The danger I see is that when people are given a label for their experience, they are also given a package of expectations and assumptions that ride side-car to that label. For example, people are told that they have "schizophrenia" and there is no cure. Further, people are told that it will be necessary to accept that label and its accompanying expectations and if they don't or won't, it's further indication of just how "crazy" they are. On the other side of the coin, there is a societal response as well. The label of "schizophrenic" is commonly linked with an expectation of unpredictable outbursts of violence, lack of intelligence, no hope of recovery, etc.

In turn, all these labels, expectations and assumptions drive treatment. In the case of those considered to be "schizophrenic" the most prevailing assumption has been that it is a disease of the brain that is best treated with medications. If that same individual also had a history of being in a war zone, or being raped by daddy, or ignored by mommy -- none of that is considered relevant. It is, in fact, shoved off the landscape and discounted entirely. As if people were nothing more than their brains. As if life experiences and the human response to them could not render one "mad".

When the Manual for the guidelines or traits of different psychological conditions was created for consideration, it was a beginning of recognizing that humans do suffer from different psycological conditions. So it is a mere guideline that groups certain common traits displayed by groups of individuals. It is a resourse for those who choose to try to treat or understand these various groups of individuals. I do not feel that it was meant to label groups of people, instead, it was ment to group these individuals together to see what can be done to help them.

The DSM is a whole other ball of wax, Open Eyes. Your assessment discounts the impact that the pharmaceutical industry has had on it; an industry that is motivated to turn a profit under the guise of helping people. Whether or not it does is blatantly obvious in some instances and highly questionable in others.

Meantime, to pick back up on Paulo's message -- what he seems to be sharing was the impact of a powerful shift in his own expectations, assumptions and beliefs he had formed regarding the label he had been given. This tells us about the power of our own assessment of our own condition. I have long insisted that no one recovers without first developing the belief that it can be done. By the same token, the belief that you can't get well can, for some people, serve to keep them in a helpless and powerless state. The same expectation, when held by treatment providers and caregivers can do the same.