Why is the narrative of somatization (or similar concepts) necessary to shift the focus away from unnecessary testing and procedures towards rehabilitative care therapies and providing support to patients? Why can't we just say that we don't know what illness the patient has and how to treat it, and all we can do is try and figure out how to best manage it in daily life?
Instead we get this make-believe narrative about mind-body effects, promises of of a universal treatment with no side effects, claims of recovery (but only for believers), dubious models that aren't credible.
I believe it's precisely this insistence to view unexplained illness through a lense of somatization, or more generally as emotional problem or problematic thinking pattern somehow manifesting as physical symptoms, that is a barrier to success. The idea of finding ways to manage unexplained illness might work better if the problem was approached without the rigidity and dogmatism. Again, why is it necessary to believe in somatization when you can do useful things without it?
To be fair as soon as someone chose the term unexplained as a sticky for ‘not gotten to the bottom of’ then they showed their hand as a reframer
And the somaticisatikn push is just misogyny and narcissism creeping in to take advantage and grimly falsely utilize powers that shouldn’t be due to them (mental health powers to do with coercion, freedom, doubting if testimony) for most of the things they try and extrapolate them to
It’s about calling women emotional instead of the thing done to them as abusive (and the reaction expected as it’s what it would do to a human and could be termed as an injury the victim isn’t responsible for). It’s playing on the ‘tgat doesn’t hurt’ trick a sibling might try on as a child to suggest a punch on the arm is acceptable if you can claim the harm is subjective. Even when you can see the action would hurt. It’s childish. Saying if we won’t investigate it that way then you can prove it as I refuse to see it.
So to me it’s all about power and some grim idea someone can manipulate norms of what most people would see/observe and put new words in their mouth and new truths to replace straightforward concepts (making someone put thru a horrific stress or injury responsible for ‘healing their own reaction’ instead of providing justice that it shouldn’t have been done to them first because all humans have limits)
This sonaticisatikb also seems to be about claiming even illnesses all can see the cause and effect as obvious and straightforward to now insert some nonsense ‘it’s caused or mediated by feelings’ simply to insert their harmful selves into the mix of it all and gerrymander the chance at healing by ‘throwing shade’
The idea that this stuff comes from a good place rather than a very potentially malign one simply because it’s making assertions about others’ mind is the first fallacy I still don’t get how they get away with selling. Given all that’s known about eg 60s psych experiments etc and old asylum type stuff people should be able to see right thru the thin claims of ‘want to help’ (being an ambiguous meaning) or branding.
So yes it is propaganda and it’s about removing the human rights of ill or injured people, starting with those they can get away with most easily as there isn’t yet the scientific pathway (but they will try it for that as we see and have seen for cancer ‘fight’ and ‘mind’ stuff) and trying to shift health issues from being bad luck or the person who did the harm being responsible ie social systems of healthcare back to a dog eat dog world if if you end up being picked on or bullied or injured it’s because you let yourself be a mug or in that weak position.
And the psychoeducation is all that about telling those who didn’t deserve it that maybe they caused it themselves and deserve how they are treated.
Goodness knows why certain people think this is a good idea as a whole bunch of harmed people isn’t going to make things more productive for the rest. But I guess that’s where the lies coming in via the branding/propaganda that it’s not just zero-sum selling to everyone that it couldn’t ever be them it happens to etc ‘because they aren’t like that’
This is really dangerous stuff the trying to push through new categories like SSD which aren’t really psychiatric but grant new powers /over reach of powers to the mental health area. New because those powers can’t be removed by the logic of symptoms being ‘understandable and explained by a diagnosed physical, biomedical illness’ providing an override on such accusations are the bit being removed by SSD - that’s what’s unusual about it as someone could have cancer causing pain or anxiety but it can be imposed to suggest the other way around. So if this one takes hold then it’s the start of the slippery slope.
