A definition of the 'Psycho-Political'

Clearing books, magazines and journals (to make space for a few new acquisitions) on a trip to Hay-on-Wye, I bought a secondhand copy of:

Weizsacker, Carl Friedrich von. (1980). The Unity of Nature.

I noticed chapters on the definition of health and illness, and information.

Models of Health and Illness, Good and Evil, Truth and Falseness

Chapter  Jun 2014 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03671-7
In book: Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker: Major Texts in Philosophy (pp.74-89)

Abstract

This essay is the core of our reflections on cybernetics. It is the only essay in this Part that tries to describe concretely what cybernetics can achieve. Written in the fall of 1967 but unpublished until now, it was inspired by a lecture on “Peacelessness as Mental Illness” delivered in Bethel in 1967 (published in Der ungesicherte Friede; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969). On that occasion the question arose whether it is medically justifiable, or merely metaphoric, to call the inability to maintain peace an illness. As far as I can see, contemporary medicine lacks a sufficiently clear concept of illness to decide this question. Since I had no desire to merely skirt the issue, I was faced with the task of outlining a scientifically justifiable definition of illness. The result is presented in Sect. 6.2 of this essay; its social application is very briefly sketched in Sect. 6.4.

(My emphasis)

Unfortunately, I cannot find a copy of the lecture. In my softback copy the title is "Lack of Peace as Psychic Illness".

We don't tend to think of mental illness in the collective, but history provides many examples within and extended across communities - 'mass psychogenic illness'. More recently there is a literature on the mental health, competency of global leaders, also known as 'hubris syndrome' previously. Even the history of Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker is controversial, his World War II record and knowledge of nuclear physics.

We have a veritable storm across all the domains of Hodges' model (including the spiritual) that point to the model's ongoing  relevance, consider:

• climate crisis;
• pollution (air, water ...)
• geopolitics;
• disruption of the international rules-based order;
• the status and reputation of global organisations (were they ever 'international'?);
• the record of current global political leadership;
• the need to protect Political titles (not just Professional titles, Dr, Nurse, ...)?;
• the rise of artificial intelligence.

Link: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300477492_Models_of_Health_and_Illness_Good_and_Evil_Truth_and_Falseness?

Space, Leadership, Choice, Politics II - Do Ho Soh

individual

|

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES

humanistic -------------------------------------------  mechanistic

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

|

group-population

	Who do we put on a pedestal?
	Do Ho Suh's Public Figures features an empty pedestal held up by many small figures. Donny Bajohr

Do Ho Suh - Lehmann Maupin

Image: Smithsonian - Take a Closer Look at a Surprising New Sculpture That Rethinks Who We Put on a Pedestal

My source: Andy St. Louis, Sculptural approach to far-fetched ideas, Arts, Life&Arts, FTWeekend, 31 August/1 September 2024, p.12.

Previously on W2tQ: Space, Memory, Home, Organisation I - Do Ho Soh

'Hubris Syndrome'

"There is another!" Karma (2003) by Do Ho Suh

Take II? Fit for Government . . ?

As a community nurse, driving is obviously pretty essential to your being able to work. I have come across non-driving community nurses (earlier this year) but they are still few(?). As a boy going to work with my father you could see how dependent he and workmates were upon a string of vans, cars and be able to drive both being on the 'right-side' of the law and his health. It was always an 'event' a new van, fitting out with racks, shelves, nooks, hooks and crannies for all sorts.*

Then as a community nurse older adults you come across individuals who still have their driving license, still have their car on the drive / front, and still have the car keys. Perhaps family have suggested to mum, dad, brother, sister, aunt: "Look, isn't it time to call it a day and give up driving?" Ouch! There's a crash - in itself.

Re-working the two-part draft paper on deprivation of liberty safeguarding, threshold concepts, Hodges' model within residential care, some thresholds are difficult, challenging to call. But some are safety critical, and perhaps need a more 'proactive' stance, without giving way to ageism. Is it the local community's job - the public's job to proffer a diagnosis: and what about persons on the world stage? Diagnosis by social media?

I quickly admired those people who, though reticent, gave up the literal fast-lane. Inevitably you wonder how you will react when the time comes. Will you have the humility, the goodness of grace to hand over the keys? To call it a day. With an ageing population, I've warned the children when driving to expect the unexpected. Cars going the wrong way. It was a struggle for my father: but safety as it so often does - did the trick - with the impetus of physical illness.

Sometimes, at work, after a family trying, and a fracas, when they've tried to hide / remove the car keys, suddenly a near-miss has upped-the-ratchet. Neighbours have seen the 'driver' reversing out into the road, with numerous car horns announcing the event. Then perhaps you are intercepted outside, a call comes to the day center (the transport is also going), the community team, or the GP's surgery (the neighbours have helped with medication).

I've had to speak to GPs for them to visit, meeting them on occasion. Do GPs - family physicians still have the same gravitas today?

This is a care transition: what can be a difficult one. A helpful point (diplomatic argument) that often gets through is the matter of car insurance and the status of the existing policy?

Does a political leader carry insurance?

It is difficult for all, a person's human rights, choices, freedom; their life story, former career perhaps, their health career - most definitely.

With events in the USA and the Democrat Party, and seeing the cover of The Economist I had to TAKE II.

Individual

|

      INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES                   

HUMANISTIC  --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

 SOCIOLOGY  :    POLITICAL 

|

Group

cognitive state memory insight Fitness for Office: Mentally & Physically Legally	The Economist
safety of Others community - duty of care - safeguarding  (however realised)

This is global problem that is set to increase and not just for reasons of health.

Ack. The Economist

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/07/04/why-biden-must-withdraw

Owen, D. (2009) In Sickness and in Power: Illnesses in Heads of Government during the Last 100 Years, London: Methuen Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-413-77689-1

Listen also ... BBC Radio 4 Moral Maze 

'The Morality of Stepping Down'

Previously:

Hubris syndrome: Daedalus Project [Psycho-Political]

*I suspect he's still driving around somewhere. x

Hubris syndrome: Daedalus Project [Psycho-Political]

INDIVIDUAL

|

 INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC -----------------------------------  MECHANISTIC    

SOCIOLOGY  :   POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

Hubris Syndrome "Democratic politicians as diverse as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Churchill, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Pompidou, Mitterrand, Blair, George W. Bush, Chirac, and Sharon all lied about their health. ...

... Between 1906 and 2008 seven Presidents are judged to have been mentally ill while in office: Theodore Roosevelt (bipolar disorder), Taft (breathing-related sleep disorder), Wilson (major depressive disorder), Coolidge (major depressive disorder), Hoover (major depressive disorder), Johnson (bipolar disorder), and Nixon (alcohol abuse). Many despots-such as Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Robert Mugabe-have been branded by the press and public opinion as suffering mental illnesses. Lord Owen argues neither Hitler nor Stalin were mad in any sense the medical profession recognizes (whereas Mussolini and Mao had depression, possibly bipolar disorder)."

'Faith' in leadership? 'Choice'?

In Sickness and in Power by Owen David

I remember Lord Owen's book being published, over a decade ago and heard radio interviews at the time (BBC Radio 4, Start the Week?). Not sure why I didn't pick this up as the disciplinary bridges are stark and clear (now!): PSYCHO-POLITICAL and GEO-PSYCHIATRIC. The importance of the issues the Daedalus Project addresses, now within Maudsley Philosophy Group is not just suddenly 'self' evident*, but is of importance for the world's population- impacting upon global safety and security.

Even since Lord Owen's book the rise of AI adds complexity (as ever).

 *irony intended.

Text: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3205306-in-sickness-and-in-power

Owen, D. (2009) In Sickness and in Power: Illnesses in Heads of Government during the Last 100 Years, London: Methuen Ltd.  ISBN: 978-0-413-77689-1

Plus via twitter: 

Thanks!

This is great talk from David Owen on Hubris syndrome we organised at @The_BNPA meeting a few years backhttps://t.co/73qGD42oQY

— Tim Nicholson (@Tim_R_Nicholson) March 6, 2022