The views expressed in the book “Madness: Family Roots” by R. D. Lang and A. Esterson aroused considerable interest in the professional community and a wide response, since they are radical and contradict the generally accepted point of view on such a well-known disease as schizophrenia. Meanwhile, the ideas are supported by research that was conducted by the authors in 1956.
“Understand, friends, I know nothing about who I am and where I came from into the dark world. I remember myself only at the court of my beautiful queen. I think she saved me from some evil spell and brought me here out of generosity... Even now I am under a spell from which only she can free me. Every night there comes an hour when my mind betrays me, and after my mind, my body. I get so mad that I could attack my best friend and kill him if I weren't tied up. And then I turn into a monster, into a huge snake, hungry, vile and evil... That’s what everyone tells me, and this, of course, is true, for she says the same thing.” Clive S. Lewis "The Silver Throne" The Chronicles of Narnia".
Revolutionary ideas in psychiatry
The main idea covered in the book is the connection between mental illnesses, primarily schizophrenia, and the patient’s family, and more precisely, their origin from there.
The authors of the book make a revolutionary statement for their time: schizophrenia, in fact, is not an existing disease, it is a set of symptoms, probably partially or completely socially determined. They essentially completely deny schizophrenia as a diagnosis, proposing something else instead.
“We use the expression “schizophrenic” to mean a person whose experiences or behavior are clinically considered to be manifestations of “schizophrenia.” In other words, a person with such a diagnosis is assigned experiences and behavior that are not simply human, but are the result of some pathological process, processes of mental and/or physical origin. It is clear that “schizophrenia” is a social phenomenon, since at least one percent of the population can be diagnosed as “schizophrenic” if these people live long enough” [1, p. 11].
In support of their theory, Lang and Esterson cite the first works on the study of schizophrenia from the times when this disease was just described and the professional community had not yet accepted this diagnosis as a given; many authors expressed justified doubts that such a disease was worth highlighting. Among them is E. Bleuler with his monograph “Daementia praecox oder Gruppe der Schizophrenien”, 1910 (“Dementia praecox, or group of schizophrenias”, Dementia praecox from Latin - Previously dementia).
Research by R. D. Lang and A. Esterson
The study recruited 11 women who had been formally diagnosed with schizophrenia. To the authors of the book, this number seems quite sufficient to confirm their theory.
Throughout the book, the idea is developed that the behavior of the subjects, defined by doctors as manifestations of schizophrenia, is actually caused by the dysfunctional relationships that have developed in their families. This behavior was natural and the only possible for them in this situation, because, in fact, they were left with no other choice. Having reviewed the cases presented in the following chapters, we can conclude that this is indeed the case or very close to it.
It is worth saying a few words about the sample: all subjects are young (under 30 years old) women who grew up in two-parent families with average and high incomes. They did not have any organic disorders, they did not undergo neurosurgical operations. For some of them, the first signs of schizophrenia appeared in childhood, for others - in adolescence and older. All of them were officially diagnosed with schizophrenia based on the following symptoms:
- hallucinations;
- delusions of influence, persecution, paranoid delusions, etc.;
- incoherence of thinking;
- cognitive disorders;
- catatonia;
- disorders of the affective-volitional sphere;
- behavioral disorders.
All patients were hospitalized for treatment in a psychiatric hospital. The list of drugs prescribed to them is not provided in detail, but it is indicated that some were prescribed electric shocks.
Interviews were conducted with patients and their families, together or separately. For each case, a list is provided, the composition and number of hours of interviews, as well as the most interesting parts of them, which allow us to reveal the essence of the patients’ relationship with their relatives.
Space for healing life. Personal website of Elena Barymova
Mikhail Prass
The double bind is a concept that plays a key role in the theory of schizophrenia developed by Bateson and his associates during the Palo Alto Project.
The double connective is based on a paradoxical prescription similar to the Epimenides paradox, that is, based on the contradiction of classification and metaclassification. An example of such an order: “I order you not to follow my orders.”
Epimenides' paradox, also known as the "liar's paradox"
The original (ancient) formulation is a story about how a certain Epimenides, a native of the island of Crete, in the heat of an argument exclaimed: “All Cretans are liars!” To which I heard an objection: “But you yourself are a Cretan! So did you lie or not?
If we assume that Epimenides told the truth, then it turns out that he, like all Cretans, is a liar. Which means he lied. If he lied, then it turns out that he, like all Cretans, is not a liar. Which means he told the truth.
Modern options boil down to the following contradiction. If I'm lying, then when I say it, I'm not lying. So, when I say this, I am telling the truth. If I am telling the truth, then the statement “I am lying” is true. And that means I’m still lying. No matter how you answer the question, a contradiction will arise.
Someone says: “I’m lying now. Did I lie in the previous sentence? Or simply: “I’m lying.” There are also options: “I always lie”, “Am I lying when I lie?”
It is worth distinguishing between a double bind and a simply mechanical combination of two simultaneously impossible demands, for example: “Stay there - come here.” An example of a double connective would be a situation when a person, saying “Yes, I agree!”, demonstrates complete disagreement with his whole appearance, or vice versa. Another example is phrases like “Yes, but...” or “I agree, however...”. In general, any ambivalent (dual) behavior or judgment demonstrates a double bind. Both “yes” and “no” at the same time...
Another example of a pathological double ligament:
A woman offers her husband two ties at once - blue and red. Such a proposal in itself is already strange. “It’s no accident,” the husband thinks, “she’s up to something.” When a man puts on, for example, a blue tie, his wife says to him: “So you don’t like the red tie?” This is a pathological double ligament. The person no longer knows what to do. He is confused, blocked. And in the end he will decide to wear both ties together. And after 6 months he will end up in a psychiatric hospital.
I will quote from A.I. Fet “Double bind. Gregory Bateson's theory of schizophrenia:
“A mother who does not love her child, but is forced to imitate an absent feeling, is a much more common phenomenon than is commonly thought.
She cannot bear to be close to the child, but tries to maintain the connection required by decency with him. A child in need of maternal love instinctively reaches out to his mother, encouraged by her verbal appeal.
But with physical closeness, such a mother begins to operate a mechanism of repulsion, which cannot manifest itself in a direct and unambiguous form and is masked in some indirect way: the mother finds fault with the child for any random reason and pushes him away, expressing this on a more abstract level than the primary one. level of “motherly love”. The child has some kind of shortcoming, he always turns out to be guilty of something;
for example, his love for his mother is declared insincere because he did not do this or that. Thus, the child perceives opposing messages expressing attraction and repulsion, and usually at different logical levels: attraction is expressed in a simpler and more direct form, and repulsion is expressed in a more complex, disguised form, through non-verbal communication or reasoning that questions it. love for mother. The stereotype of connection between mother and child that develops in this way continues when the child goes to school.
The mother’s suggestions in such cases also have a double character: at a lower level, the mother inspires him that he should not fight with Petya, Vasya, etc., and at a higher, more abstract level - that he should “defend his dignity,” “ don’t let yourself be offended,” etc. Of course, in all cases the child turns out to be guilty, since he does not fulfill either the first, direct suggestion, or the second, indirect one. This conflict between two levels of communication, in which the child is “always at fault,” is called the double bind. The double bind mechanism is not at all limited to the relationship between mother and child, but represents a very common pathology of human communication.
Such a conflict does not always lead to catastrophic consequences.
A child’s healthy reaction to the mother’s unconscious hypocrisy is resistance: sensing contradictions between the mother’s demands, the child begins to “comment on” them, proving the mother’s injustice and that she is right. But if the mother reacts with a sharp ban on commenting on her behavior (for example, threatening to leave the child, go crazy or die, etc.) and thereby does not allow him to resist, then the child’s ability to distinguish signals indicating the nature of communication is suppressed, which constitutes the beginning of schizophrenia. Sometimes the intervention of the father can help, but in “schizogenic” families the father is weak and helpless. If a child has the opportunity to resist the contradictory demands of the mother, this, of course, disturbs the peace of the family, but such a child has a chance to grow up healthy: he will learn to recognize the signals that determine the logical levels of messages. In a more abstract demand, he recognizes the negation of a more concrete one, is indignant and does not always obey, but does not at all confuse the two sides of the “bundle”. Things will turn out differently if the child cannot resist. The child learns not to distinguish between logical types of messages, thereby taking the first step towards schizophrenia. He now responds to his mother’s claims with sincere misunderstanding, so that he is considered “abnormal.” And then this same pattern of relationships is transferred to other people... This does not mean at all that such a child will certainly become mentally ill.
He goes to school, spends time outside the family and can gradually learn to distinguish between messages of different logical types if his relationship with the “schizogenic” mother was not too intense. Maybe he won't do it as well as others; He probably won't develop much of a sense of humor and won't laugh as contagiously as his friends. And now about heredity and gender stereotypes...
One can understand how this whole sequence of events is related to heredity. First of all, a person brought up in a “double bind” himself subconsciously gets used to this system of relationships and applies it to his children.
It is the mother who is inclined to pass on the skills of double ligaments to her children, because the father does not have instinctive love for his children, and culturally conditioned feelings, no less genuine and strong, are not subject to the distortion associated with instinct.
If conditions do not allow children to resist this upbringing, then a “schizophrenic family” arises. If allowed, then such a “tradition” is not formed, and in the next generation this mechanism may disappear. Such “heredity” does not depend on genes, but on upbringing - it is cultural heredity.
“A schizophrenic family” exclusively influences the formation of a person’s “internal duality,” and “escaping reality” in the version of “rose-colored glasses” is already a consequence of the discomfort that a person experiences from his duality... a specific method of “psychological defense.”
As for “not giving a damn,” in its extreme form it can manifest itself in the form of autism, in this context, the tendency of individuals not to have contact with others in accordance with generally accepted principles and norms.
By the way, “duality”, “raggedness, spasmodic thinking” and “autism” are the three main diagnostic signs of schizophrenia.
Clinical cases: similarities and examples
After reading the book, it becomes clear that the 11 families described have some similar characteristics. They are repeated in all or several cases from the selected group. Among these signs are the following:
- Difficult communications between daughter and mother or both parents, consisting in the ambiguity of the transmitted messages. This is denial or devaluation of existing facts, false interpretation, double messages that contradict each other, so-called gaslighting.
For example, the first case described is a patient named Maya:
“As Maya said, her father “... often laughed at what I said to him, and I could not understand what he was laughing at. I thought this was very offensive... I told my dad about school, and he laughed at my words. If I told him about my dreams, he laughed and told me not to take them seriously...” [1, p. 33].
The case of another girl, Claire Church:
“Mrs. Church only managed with great difficulty to maintain the impression that they were “very similar... To see the resemblance approaching identification, Mrs. Church had to deny her own perceptions, encourage Claire to deny her feelings and so change her words, gestures, movements so that they did not very much contradicted the image of the daughter drawn by the mother” [1, p. 83].
Sarah Danzig's family:
“We first had to explain why this girl is so naive. One could assume... that the attempts of family members to mystify her, to deceive her, were a consequence of this naivety. This was partly true. But our data suggests that her very naivety is the result of previous deceptions and hoaxes. Thus, the family was drawn into a vicious circle. The more Sarah was mystified, the more naive she became, and the more naive she was, the more clearly it became necessary for family members to protect themselves from this naivety by deceiving the girl” [1, p. 124].
In the family of another patient, Ruby Eden, there was even confusion about who was who and who was related to whom: she had to call her biological mother “mom” and her aunt “mother”, her father “uncle”, and her uncle “dad”.
“Ruby and her mother lived with her mother’s married sister, that sister’s husband (father or uncle), and their son (cousin). Her father (uncle) was married, lived with another family somewhere else and visited them only occasionally. There were furious arguments in the family over whether Ruby knew who she really was” [1, p. 140].
This attitude undoubtedly greatly disorientated the patients, so that they sometimes could not distinguish the objective reality from the one created in such dysfunctional communication.
- Family as a closed system. In some of the described cases, patients were prohibited from leading a social life and communicating with people outside the family, as this was declared dangerous.
The case of Lucy Blair described:
“Mrs. Blair said that her husband watched Lucy’s every move, demanded that she account for every minute she spent outside the house, told her that if she left the house she would be kidnapped, raped or killed... He (and his brother , mother, sister and sister-in-law) terrorized Lucy with stories of what would happen if she left the "safety" of home. He believed that it would be useful for her to “toughen up” in this way” [1, p. 54].
In some cases, patients, when removed from their families and placed in a different environment, began to feel significantly better. As in the case of patient June Field:
“Having returned from the camp, she for the first time began to express her true attitude towards herself, towards her mother, towards school activities, towards God, towards other people and so on... Only her mother saw in this a manifestation of the disease...” [1, P. 160].
- Strict boundaries and restrictions. Some families (like the patients themselves) were very religious, others had strict moral principles and rules that were extremely difficult to follow.
An example from the case of patient Sarah Danzig, whose parents were Orthodox Jews:
“Sarah... had to direct her thoughts and actions in strict accordance with Mr. Danzig's obsessive interpretation of religious orthodoxy. Taking advantage of Sarah's social naivety, the family demanded complete obedience only from her. And she could not compare the praxis of her parents with the praxis of other people, since all her contacts, besides her family, were cut off” [1, p. 129].
Another patient, Jean Head, had parents who were zealous fundamentalist nonconformists. Their views and beliefs are so contrary to the needs and behavior of a living person that Jean develops two personalities: one for the house and one for herself. And when the pressure becomes unbearable, she has a delusional idea that her parents are dead:
“There is probably no other group in society whose members expect more of themselves in some respects. By forming families and thereby leading a sexual life... people like the Heads and their parents consider any sexual fantasy a sin, even in relation to their marriage partner. Expressing sexual thoughts towards any person is strictly prohibited. (...) They claim that they never quarrel or get angry. (...) The main goal of life is to glorify the Lord, but children need to be taught in secular schools and they need to acquire “base” technological knowledge in order to win... in a competitive society” [1, P. 192].
- The parents' negative attitude towards the patients' sexuality was emphasized: it was either denied, condemned, or declared to be something abnormal.
An example from Lucy's case:
“Evidently Mr. Blair did not consider his anxiety about his wife and daughter to be excessive, and it was clear to us what he wanted his daughter to be - a pure, virginal, single lady. Rare instances of physical and frequent manifestations of verbal violence against her were justified by his view of her as a sexually promiscuous woman... Her daughter betrayed him with her sexuality” [1, p. 67].
Another patient, Maya, also spoke in an interview about her sexual thoughts regarding her father and mother. The parents denied everything: “It didn’t happen.”
In the case of patient Ruby Eden, her family reacted to her pregnancy in a very unique way:
“As soon as they heard about this from Ruby, her mother and mother sat her down on the sofa in the living room and, trying to pour soapy water into her womb, with tears in their eyes, reproachfully, pitifully and vindictively began to explain to her what a fool she was, what a whore she was. , what a loser she is... what a pig this guy is, what a shame..." [1, P. 142].
- Increased attention to the patient’s personality and actions, discussion of her, the desire to take part in all her affairs, “live her life.” Blurred, unclear personal boundaries, total control, even delusional ideas of direct or indirect influence on thoughts and personality. This, in turn, could cause delusions of influence.
Example from Maya's case:
“My mother complained to us that Maya did not want to understand her, my father felt the same, and both were very offended that Maya did not tell them anything about herself. Their reaction to this is curious: it began to seem to them that Maya had some special insight. They were convinced that she was able to read their thoughts” [1, p. 33].
The following describes the “experiments in mind reading” that Maya’s parents regularly conducted without telling her anything about it, and she herself did the same with them. The family supported the idea that family members could penetrate each other's thoughts. The consequences were predictable:
“Clinically, she suffered from the idea of influence.” She repeatedly repeated that, contrary to her wishes, she had an unfavorable influence on those around her, and they also had a detrimental effect on her - despite her resistance" [1, p. 34].
Total control of actions is clearly visible in the case of patient June Field:
“My parents didn’t give June pocket money, but they said they would if June told her what it was for... She had to give an account of her smallest acquisitions. One day... June found a shilling at the cinema, and her parents forced her to give the shilling to the management. June said that this was absurd, that it was “going too far in honesty, that if she herself had lost a shilling, she would not expect it to be returned to her. But her parents talked about it the whole next day, and in the evening her father came to her room to continue admonishing her” [1, p. 167].
Many patients really constantly felt under close attention and control, and noticed these attempts to influence them. But since they were very disoriented and much of what was actually being done was denied by their parents, all this was perceived as delirium, confusion of thinking, etc.
Another example from the case of Lucy Blair, illustrating the patient’s perception of the world:
“I don't believe what I see. This has no backing. Nothing confirms this in any way - everything just happens in front of me. I think that's my problem. Everything I can say is not backed up... I don't think I understand my actual situation... I'm not sure what people are saying, or if they are saying anything at all. I don’t know what exactly is bad, if there is something bad” [1, p. 57].
Portrait
Olga is about 35 years old. This is an energetic modern business lady with two higher educations: she is a journalist-photographer and a manager. She works two jobs : editor-in-chief of a large magazine and director and teacher of a photography school. She has two children : a boy and a girl. They are 9 and 6 years old respectively.
These children are from different fathers . She was never married to Svyatoslav’s father (that’s the name of Olga’s son). They broke up before the boy was born. Then Olga was married for some time to her colleague and subordinate at the photography school, but they were not together for long and separated with a scandal.
Olga's whole day is scheduled minute by minute. She's always in a hurry . She lives alone, with children. When Svyatoslav was first born, her mother lived with her, but they were constantly in conflict. Mom left, now she is in another city. Olga hardly communicates with her.
In general, she never communicates informally with anyone. She is very businesslike. Just communicating, in her mind, means wasting time. In addition, she is very insecure in communication, even afraid of it. During any informal contacts, she feels as if she is naked: she feels hard, ashamed, scared, and wants it to end as soon as possible.
Her communication style is abrupt and abrupt.
She is not overtly rude, but her subordinates are afraid of her. She is very demanding and picky.
She treats children the same way. She doesn’t talk to them much : mostly it’s about commands and orders.
However, Olga is an extremely caring mother . Svyatoslav studies with three tutors, goes to the swimming pool and music school. Olga even follows him to the pool and to the music school by car (he goes there himself, using public transport). Sonya, her daughter, is already dancing, although she is just about to start first grade.
Olga is well versed in cooking and knows how to cook. She feeds and clothes the children well.
However, despite all her worries, the children, even in appearance, look unhappy.
Svyatoslav has a thin, pale face, large ears, he always looks tired, sad, and somehow downcast. Sophia has the corners of her mouth, like an old woman’s, drooping far down, and her eyes always have dark circles under them, as if she doesn’t get enough sleep or is constantly crying, although this is not the case.
The children also communicate little with each other : they each have their own room. Olga is a wealthy person: she earns more than 100 thousand rubles a month, not counting journalistic fees and advertising income. Her total income is more than 250 thousand per month. She pays a large mortgage. She has a wonderful apartment in a prestigious area, in a new building.
Olga never consults her children about anything : she makes all decisions herself. Children never try to express their opinion: both Svyatoslav and Sophia are submissive and obedient. Their whole day is planned by their mother, from getting up to lights out. There is nothing special in their life, and they cannot imagine what could be.
Mom is their complete, absolute mistress. Olga does not tolerate the slightest contradiction to herself, nor the slightest disobedience.
And not only from children. And at work, she instantly gets rid of those who did not please her in any way, even in some small way.
Outwardly, Olga is a typical business lady and a typical boss . She is tall and densely built. Her face is amicable, somewhat pale, cold. The gaze is also moving away, cold, and the same voice, sharp, abrupt.
She never looks her interlocutor in the eye. Her movements are also sharp and fast. She often drops and breaks dishes because she is always in a hurry to get somewhere and doesn’t have time. Despite her efficiency, she is absent-minded: she often forgets that she has made an appointment with someone and does not come to it. She sleeps poorly and takes strong sleeping pills .
Olga completely abandoned her personal life. After a scandalous divorce from her husband, she has been alone for 2 years, she does not have a close man, and she is not trying to do anything to make him appear.
Portrait of a schizophrenogenic mother in this video:
Schizophrenogenic mother or both parents?
The idea of a schizophrenogenic mother arose around the same years when this book was written - it was first expressed by Frieda Fromm-Reichmann in 1948. Such a mother, as described by Fromm-Reichman, is cold and dominant, selfish, striving for complete control over the child’s behavior. Its behavior involves a special pattern called double bind, which means two statements that contradict each other. In the above cases, it is clear that such patterns occurred quite often in the families of patients, for example, when they were required to be independent and at the same time limited in everything, allowed to meet boys and at the same time condemned any sexual manifestations, etc.
However, Fromm-Reichman's theory has not received scientific confirmation. In the cases cited in the book, moreover, we are not talking about the behavior of the mother alone: all relatives participate in shaping the attitude of the sick. So, rather, we can talk about a schizophrenogenic family, dysfunctional relationships and the environment that provokes the disease.
Consultation with a psychologist: schizogenic and schizophrenogenic mother
Schizogenic and schizophrenogenic mother are loose concepts used by some psychologists in practice. According to such psychologists, a schizogenic mother is a woman who forms schizoid personality traits (character) in her child, and a schizophrenogenic mother forms the disease schizophrenia.
Any publications on this site do not claim to be a textbook on psychology, psychiatry or a guide to psychological help. The help of a professional psychologist, in most cases, is more effective than the client’s self-help. We are only trying to give our clients and readers a superficial understanding of psychology. In mild cases, this helps a person understand himself without turning to a psychologist. In severe cases, the client’s horizons in psychology significantly improves mutual understanding between the client and the psychologist, and, consequently, makes psychological assistance faster and cheaper. So, in most cases, knowing is more useful than not knowing.
1. Schizogenic or schizophrenogenic mother?
Historically, the concept of a schizophrenogenic, rather than a schizogenic mother, initially arose.
Sigmund Freud also pointed out the possible psychological causes of schizophrenia. Freud assumed that if parents go to extremes in raising a child (for example, parents are overly harsh, cold and aloof, or, on the contrary, show excessive care and overprotection towards the child), then the child experiences psychological stress and develops responses (psychological defenses). ). According to Freud, the child experiences psychological processes of regression and attempts to regain control of his ego over the situation. Escaping emotional stress that is unbearable for the child’s psyche, the child “escaps” into a world where he felt good - he regresses into childhood, and there the child falls into the extremes of narcissism and self-centered concern exclusively for his own needs. That is, the child responds with extreme measures to the extremes of the parents. However, while growing up, the child cannot remain in a state of regression into childhood, because parents and the surrounding reality forcibly “pull” the child out of there (after all, the demands on a growing child increase), and then the growing child tries to restore control of his Ego over the situation - this is how delusions of persecution and grandeur arise. According to Sigmund Freud, this is approximately how schizophrenia arises and develops in a person as a result of the influence of parental upbringing. Thus, Freud posed the question to schizophrenogenic parents as well.
However, the concept of a schizophrenogenic mother was developed in detail not by Sigmund Freud, but by Frieda Fromm-Reichman in 1948. In her opinion, a schizophrenogenic mother is a cold, dominant woman who does not pay enough attention to the needs of the child. For a schizophrenogenic mother, a child is a social project, and not a little loved one. Such mothers can present difficulties in giving birth and raising a child, demonstrate their maternal self-sacrifice, and in fact use the conditional social project “Child” to achieve their goals in life. And then everything happens approximately as described by Sigmund Freud.
Interesting articles
Family training
About the personal approach in psychology and in the practice of consulting a psychologist
Pitfalls of psychosomatics
About the fulfillment of desires
Subsequently, neither Freud's views nor Fromm-Reichman's views received rigorous scientific evidence. Statistics show that the mothers of the majority of severely ill schizophrenics do not correspond to the descriptions of Freud and Fromm-Reichman. Apparently, completely different reasons dominate in the occurrence and development of schizophrenia as a disease.
However, some practicing psychologists have noticed that a certain type of personality and character of the mother is very often accompanied by high rates of schizoidity in the child, which is proven by generally recognized authoritative psychodiagnostic methods (for example, MMPI). These psychologists believe that the presence of a certain psychological type of mother (as the only reason) is not enough for the emergence and development of schizophrenia, but provokes schizoidism in the child (a borderline state between normal and pathology - schizophrenia), but a high level of schizoidism can already be the basis for the development of the disease schizophrenia in the presence of other more significant causes (for example, hereditary).
In our practice, we have repeatedly encountered cases confirming this assumption. That is why we consider the concept of a schizophrenogenic mother incorrect, but the concept of a schizogenic mother, although not strict, is quite acceptable and correct for a practical psychologist, where long-term observations of the psyche and behavior of people, supported by psychodiagnostic examinations, are important. Thus, we are talking about a schizogenic (and not schizophrenogenic) mother.
2. Who is a schizogenic mother?
According to our practical observations of psychologists, a schizogenic mother is a dominant woman, internally emotionally alienated in relation to the child, who uses the child as a social project to achieve her goals, and at the same time in her behavior demonstrates to the child inconsistency in relation to him: from excessive control to aggression (even if only verbal). We call such mothers schizogenic, and their children (both teenagers and adults) during our psychodiagnostic examination extremely often show high rates of schizoidity (at the level of accentuation or even psychopathy). Undoubtedly, a schizogenic mother cannot be the only or main cause of the onset and development of schizophrenia in a child (later an adult), but it is easy to provoke high schizoidness, subsequent dramatic psychological problems and severe social maladaptation! These are our loose observations in the practice of a psychologist.
3. Why does a schizogenic mother do this?
Undoubtedly, a schizogenic mother does not make a targeted, conscious effort to develop a high level of schizoidism in her child (who subsequently experiences the natural consequences of schizoidism in adulthood). A schizogenic mother gives priority to her life goals and is led by the properties of her character (personality). She does not control her behavior towards the child (due to ignorance of clinical child psychology or due to emotional dissolution), and she has a schizoid child simply and logically, as a consequence of her behavior. A schizogenic mother may well love her child, but she loves herself, her personality and her life goals much more. A schizogenic mother cannot or does not want to change for the purpose of raising a psychologically prosperous and socially adaptive child, or at least to control her emotions and behavior.
4. How does a schizogenic mother do this?
We have repeatedly conducted psychological consultations for adolescents and adults with high levels of schizoidism, who described their mothers as schizogenic. We observed a significant part of these mothers directly ourselves during a consultation with a psychologist.
Most adult schizoid children of schizogenic mothers describe approximately similar algorithms for the emergence of schizoid personality traits (character). Outbursts of mothers' verbal aggressiveness; mother's frequent demonstration of emotional detachment; the dominant opinion of the mother on all issues without recognizing the child as unequal, but at least a participant in a reasonable discussion; the child’s feeling of being unloved and unprotected - all this gives rise to the child’s psychological and behavioral reaction of the schizoid type.
Over time, the schizoid reaction becomes part of the personality and character. The child begins to feel a desire to escape into an illusory pleasant world (for example, regression to childhood, excessive fantasizing or passion for computer games), a reluctance (and subsequently inability) to close emotional contact is formed (after all, the closest person, the mother, is emotionally traumatic), a special ornate and pretentious thinking (the child’s attempts to figure out how a weak person can avoid dominance and aggression from a stronger person, and at the same time the one closest to him).
As a result, a teenager grows up, and then an adult, with a high level of schizoidity (at the level of accentuation or psychopathy), which is confirmed by psychological tests. In order not to overload this text with a detailed description of what schizoidism is, how it manifests itself and what consequences it leads to, we refer the reader to our publication: “Consultation with a psychologist: schizoidism .
5. Why a schizogenic mother and not a schizogenic father?
The social traditions of most families are such that of the two parents, it is the mother, and not the father, who spends most of the time with the child. If we assume that schizoid children grow up, including as a result of the schizogenic influence of their parents, then it is the mother’s influence that is characterized by duration and totality. Naturally, the personality and character of a child is shaped more by the mother than by the father. An aggressive, dominant, emotionally distant father can be perceived by a child as a temporary (coming and going) “natural disaster” (which can be waited out or from which one can hide), but a mother with similar qualities (due to her constant and total presence in the child’s life ) does not leave the child any options other than to psychologically adapt and become deformed according to the schizoid type.
6. What are the disadvantages of the concept of a schizophrenogenic mother?
As we have already written, there is no strict scientific evidence that a certain psychological type of mother is significantly correlated (statistically associated) with the disease schizophrenia in children and adults. In psychiatry, there are several typical and well-founded views on the emergence and development of schizophrenia - mainly the influence of genetic factors and a biochemical abnormality (dopamine (dopamine) hypothesis). Studies of relatives of people with schizophrenia, as well as studies of identical twins, prove this.
If one identical twin is diagnosed with schizophrenia as an adult, then in approximately 48% of cases the other twin will also have schizophrenia. This is a very high figure. But if the twins are fraternal, then this figure is only 17%. Earnestly!
The dopamine (dopamine) hypothesis is extremely interesting. According to numerous biochemical studies, dopamine (dopamine) and some other substances significantly affect the activity of neurons. There are good reasons to believe that excess dopamine leads to schizophrenia, and deficiency leads to Parkinson's disease. The success of drug treatment of schizophrenia and Parkinson's disease with drugs that regulate dopamine levels clearly confirms this.
But neither genetic studies nor indicators of biochemical abnormalities significantly correlate with the psychotypical characteristics of mothers of schizophrenics. The term schizophrenogenic mother is wrong! In contrast to the term schizogenic mother, which, although not strict, is confirmed by the extensive practice of psychologists. In our subjective opinion, a schizophrenogenic mother does not exist! Schizogenic mother - definitely yes!
7. Can a child independently resist a schizogenic mother?
Unfortunately, the formation of schizoid qualities is the child’s resistance to the schizogenic mother. This is the very case when it is impossible not to resist, and resistance often leads to clinical peculiarities such as schizoidism and social maladjustment. This is the tragedy of the situation.
8. What should an adult do if he has a schizogenic mother?
A) Isolate from the influence of the mother (an adult can easily take control of his contacts with his mother while maintaining respect and care for the mother).
B) Expand your horizons and realize your personality and character traits, formed as a result of upbringing. Become aware of what is happening to yourself, try to take control of your reactions (schizoidness is not schizophrenia, it can be completely controlled). Read a lot on the topic, for example, “Consultation with a psychologist: schizoid .
C) Contact a good psychologist who, using psychological assistance, will help correct the negative consequences of being raised by a schizogenic mother.
9. How can a psychologist help?
Fortunately, most people with a high level of schizoidness also have a high level of intelligence. In fact, this is often an inherent quality of schizoidity. In our practice as psychologists, a cycle of psychological consultations (even without the use of serious psychotherapy techniques) often significantly reduced schizoidism in adult clients - if not to the norm, then at least to an acceptable level. In this sense, the situation is not only not hopeless, but, on the contrary, very promising for psychological help.
© Authors Igor and Larisa Shiryaev. The authors provide advice on issues of personal life and social adaptation (success in society). You can read about the features of the analytical consultation “Successful Brains” by Igor and Larisa Shiryaev on the CONSULTATION page.
Analytical psychological consultation with Igor and Larisa Shiryaev. You can ask questions and schedule a consultation by phone. E-mail We will be glad to help you!
Tags: articles on psychology
Schizophrenia and heredity: modern research
Schizophrenia is considered a hereditary disease: if one of your close or distant relatives had schizophrenia, then the patient has a predisposition. The closer the relatives have had schizophrenia, the more likely it is that the symptoms of the disease will reappear in that family. However, there is a very subtle and ambiguous point here: is schizophrenia transmitted genetically or are there still certain behavioral patterns? The authors of the book develop the second version.
The question of the emergence and heterogeneity of manifestations of schizophrenia has occupied the minds of scientists around the world for many years. The main areas of research are the etiology of schizophrenia, the study of the genesis of clinical polymorphism and pharmacological studies. That is, to put it in simpler terms, scientists are interested in the following: where does schizophrenia come from, why do its symptoms vary so much from case to case, and how can it be cured?
To date, the following facts are reliably known:
- children with two sick parents have a risk of developing the disease of 41-46%, this risk is even more pronounced in identical twins: 47-48%;
- parents of children with schizophrenia have pronounced schizoid personality traits, their cognitive characteristics are very similar to those of patients, and approximately 20-30% of relatives of diagnosed schizophrenics have so-called “spectrum disorders”, which are weakened symptoms of schizophrenia or sharpened personality traits;
- Children with schizophrenia and their parents exhibit the same biochemical and immunological abnormalities [5].
All this may indicate that the disease does indeed run in the family, and perhaps has a genetic origin, but until recently the schizophrenia gene had not been identified. However, everything changed last year, after publication in the journal Nature, where it was reported that the schizophrenia gene was finally discovered by scientists: it was the C4 protein, localized in neuronal processes, synapses and cell bodies. In mice, C4 indirectly affected the elimination of synapses during the postnatal period of development.
“Structurally diverse alleles of the C4 complement component genes generate different levels of C4A and C4B expression in the brain, with each common C4 allele being associated with schizophrenia in proportion to its tendency to generate greater expression of C4A,” reports a team of US scientists led by Stephen McCarroll of the Broad Institute at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [2]. This study aims to explain why the number of neural connections is reduced in patients with schizophrenia.
However, not everything is so simple: the discovery of the C4 gene only brought scientists a little closer to understanding the biological mechanisms of the disease, but is not clear evidence of the genetic origin of schizophrenia. Since the manifestations of the disease are very diverse, there are also many genetic abnormalities that are present in some cases and absent in others.
Research prospects
Currently, many researchers of schizophrenia, as well as advocates for the interests of patients, are still inclined to believe that this is not a general disease, but only a set of specific symptoms. Many even refuse the definition of “schizophrenia,” believing that such a diagnosis stigmatizes the patient and does not reveal anything about his personality [3].
Many front-line physicians recommend increasing funding for non-medical approaches such as family therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy. Also, many have expressed doubts about the correctness of the idea of inheritance of the disease, which appeared mainly due to family and twin studies. These scientists and doctors are inclined to believe that the development of schizophrenia is predominantly influenced by the environment, personal and family circumstances, experienced stress and mental trauma, especially those received in childhood.
