Should psychiatrists read fiction?
ALLAN BEVERIDGE, FRCPsych
Queen Margaret Hospital, Whitefield Road, Dunfermline KY12 OSU, UK
DECLARATION OF INTEREST
None.
Should psychiatrists read fiction? Recent trends suggest that the answer is
yes. There has been the publication of the journal, Medical
Humanities; the rise of narrative-based medicine, with its insistence
that reading literature can help doctors better understand the
narratives of their patients; the creation of an Arts and
Medicine faculty at Durham University; and the proposal to set up an Arts and
Psychiatry Special Interest group in the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Such
developments spring from the belief that it is beneficial for doctors to be
exposed to the arts; that somehow it makes them better clinicians. In
contrast, others maintain that doctors should focus on medical science and
that the arts are an irrelevance and a distraction. Here I examine the
argument, especially as it applies to psychiatry.
In an influential lecture, C. P. Snow
(1959), the physicist and
writer, contended that society was divided into two cultures,
the scientific and the artistic. He maintained that this split was destructive
and warned that Closing the gap between our cultures is a necessity in
the most abstract intellectual sense, as well as the most practical.
More recently, David Lodge dramatised this conflict in his novel,
Thinks, in which a cognitive scientist and a novelist argue over
whether science or imaginative literature offers the best way of unlocking the
mysteries of the mind. By the end of the novel, it is clear that both
perspectives are valuable, and that to be restricted to only one is
limiting.
In medicine, the humanities were formerly considered to be an important
part of medical education. In the 18th century it was held that the doctor
should be a man (it was invariably a man) of culture, and should be well
versed in the humanities. This would confer wisdom on his clinical practice.
Rousseau (1986) has maintained
that the value that clinicians attach to the humanities has waned in modern
times and that doctors increasingly see themselves as scientists and
biotechnicians. However, Neve
(1993) has argued that,
despite the prevailing technological culture, many doctors have maintained an
interest in the arts.
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF READING LITERATURE
- T. S. Eliot (1948) observed
that we read many books, because we cannot know enough people.
We can explore the lives and inner worlds of a wide variety of individuals by
imaginatively engaging with them in novels.
- A purely bioscientific model offers a limited view of human beings. Doctors
need a deeper understanding of their patients that takes account of emotional
and existential aspects. Literature offers such a perspective
(Downie, 1994). The recent
changes in medical education outlined in Tomorrow's Doctors
(General Medical Council, 1993) recommend that students are exposed to the humanities as well as the
biosciences. There is some evidence that medical students who have a
background in the humanities and science, rather than science alone, go on to
perform better in important areas of practice
(Rolfe et al, 1995).
In relation to psychiatry, Cawley
(1993) has argued that medical
science does not provide a complete picture of human beings and advocates the
complementary study of the humanities.
- Reading literature helps to develop empathy. One can see the world from
another person's viewpoint. This is especially applicable to literary accounts
of illness and suffering. For example, Iain Crichton Smith's novel, In the
Middle of the Wood, depicts his own psychotic breakdown; Evelyn Waugh's
The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold describes drug-induced hallucinosis;
Bernard MacLaverty's Grace Notes deals with postnatal depression; Ian
McEwan's Enduring Love is concerned with de Clérambault's
syndrome; and practically all of Dostoyevsky's novels feature characters with
mental disturbances.
- Some commentators have made the distinction between aesthetic
and ethical approaches to the medical study of literature
(McLellan & Jones, 1996).
The former approach leads to the development of complex interpretive skills.
Narrative-based medicine is particularly concerned with this area
(Greenhalgh & Hurwitz,
1998). The techniques involved in understanding and analysing a
novel can be applied to the understanding of patient discourse. One can become
more sensitive to the nuances and subtexts of a patient's communication.
Several literary devices have clinical resonances. For example, the concept
of the unreliable narrator is especially applicable to the
understanding of a patient's history. This refers to the situation where the
character telling the story might give, either by design or unwittingly, a
misleading or distorted account of events. For example, in The Diary of a
Nobody by George and Weedon Grossmith, the narrator, Charles Pooter,
attempts to present himself as a man of dignity, but his account of himself
and his encounters with others reveals that he is a figure of fun. A similar
phenomenon can occur clinically when a patient's story suggests to the
psychiatrist a different picture than was intended.
- The ethical approach teaches ethical reflection and how to
approach moral quandaries and decision-making. For example, William Carlos
Williams' short story The Use of Force raises the question as to
whether it is ever justifiable to medically intervene against a patient's
will. Brian McCabe's story Full Moon examines the feelings
engendered in a therapist when he is mistaken for a patient. Gene Brewer's
novel K-Pax explores the dilemma facing the psychiatrist in deciding
whether a patient is describing real events or delusions.
- Theoreticians have also discussed the difference between an
additive and an integrated approach to the subject
(Evans & Greaves, 1999). The former sees the arts as adding on to an existing biomedical knowledge
base, whereas the latter attempts to refocus the whole of medicine to an
understanding of what it is to be fully human. Richard Smith
(1999) has observed,
The additive view is that medicine can be "softened" by
exposing its practitioners to the humanities; the integrated view is more
ambitious, aiming to shape the nature, goals and knowledge base
itself.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST READING LITERATURE
- The arts are simply irrelevant to the practice of medicine. One should
concentrate on acquiring clinical skills and learning the basic facts.
Anything else is a distraction. Wassersug
(1987), has declared:
real medical progress has not been made by humanitarians but by doctors
equipped with microscopes, scalpels, dyes, catheters, rays, test tubes, and
culture plates. Similarly, psychiatry should be seen as a branch of the
natural sciences. Human beings are essentially no different from other
constituents of the physical world, and all we need to know about them will be
revealed by the neurosciences. The arts, therefore, have nothing to offer.
- Imaginative writers are attempting to do crudely and unsystematically what
modern psychologists do in a sophisticated and rigorous manner. According to
Downie & Charlton (1992) it
is enough to state this proposition to recognise the absurdity of it, but
there are those who agree with it. Certainly the cognitive scientist in
Lodge's Thinks makes this claim, dismissing imaginative literature as
folk psychology.
- Harold Bloom (2000), a
distinguished literary critic, asserts that reading does not make us better,
more-caring people. It is essentially a selfish activity. It can expand an
individual's intellectual horizons but it does not engender altruism or
increased sensitivity to others. In his book Newton's Sleep, the
physician Raymond Tallis
(1995) goes to great lengths
to argue that an acquaintance with the arts does not make individuals more
caring; in fact, it might make them less so. He quotes Tolstoy's tale of an
aristocratic woman weeping in the theatre at the imaginary tragedy enacted on
the stage, while outside a real tragedy is taking place as her faithful
coachman freezes to death. Here art serves to deceive the woman that she is
sensitive, when she is actually inconsiderate.
More generally, George Steiner
(1971) has repeatedly
questioned the assumption that exposure to the arts leads to more-civilised
behaviour, citing the example of Nazi Germany where high culture coexisted
alongside concentration camps. As McManus
(1995) has pointed out, the
semantic kinship between the terms humane and the humanities suggests a causal
relationship, but there may, in fact, be none.
- Reading is not a substitute for experience. The great French novelist,
Marcel Proust, who immersed himself in literature, recognised this. As he
wrote:
- To make [reading] into a discipline is to give too large a role to
what is only an incitement. Reading is on the threshold of the spiritual life;
it can introduce us to it: it does not constitute it
(de Botton, 1997).
An exclusively bookish life can lead to an estrangement from the rest of
humanity. In an amusing historical survey entitled Reading: A Health
Warning, Roy Porter
(1999) charted the many
voices, including physicians and psychiatrists, who have advised that
excessive reading can bring about mental and physical decline.
- Many doctors simply do not read books, whether through lack of inclination,
aptitude or time.
- From the artistic point of view, several commentators object to the whole
notion of approaching a work of literature with the pre-determined aim of
extracting something that may be clinically useful
(Bamforth, 2001). Imaginative
writing should produce varied and unpredictable responses in its readers. It
is inappropriate to trawl through literature for references to doctors and
disease, as this implies that the reader is not open to the aesthetic
potential of the work. Oscar Wilde famously declared, All art is quite
useless, and resisted any suggestion that it was educational or morally
uplifting.
DISCUSSION
Psychiatrists who read fiction evidently see value in it; those who do not
might be unmoved by arguments in its favour. Those who argue against the
benefits of reading are surely right to question the assumption that exposure
to literature automatically brings about greater sensitivity and empathy in
the reader. However, although even the most fervent enthusiast for the arts
would not claim that all doctors should read books, there is a growing
acknowledgement of the value of the humanities in medical education, and
perhaps this is part of a wider trend that recognises the limitations of a
purely biotechnological approach to patient care. In a critique of
evidence-based medicine, Williams & Garner
(2002) conclude that it
must be underpinned by the need to understand and respond empathically
to the illness in accord with the patient's experiential perspective,
and they go on to underline the importance of engaging with the humanities as
part of professional development.
If one does accept that it is of benefit to psychiatrists to read, should
there be a canon of improving texts? Several canons have indeed been proposed
(Greenhalgh & Hurwitz,
1998). However, there is a danger that they are approached as
didactic texts. They can then become a chore to read. Furthermore, if the aim
is to develop interpretive skills, it surely does not matter what books are
read; they do not have to be about medicine, psychiatry or mental illness.
However, one of the claims in favour of reading is the notion that books
about illness and suffering help doctors better understand the inner
experience of their patients and, as a consequence, develop greater empathy.
It is here that a suggested reading list may be of value, and I have already
mentioned a number of novels in this genre. It is important that such reading
lists are offered in the spirit of suggestion rather than as compulsory texts.
It will then be left to the individual psychiatrist to decide whether they are
worth exploring. A medical culture that takes a positive approach to the
humanities will greatly encourage such explorations.
REFERENCES
Bamforth, I. (2001) Literature, medicine, and
the culture wars. Lancet,
358,
1361-1364.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bloom, H. (2000) How to Read and
Why. London: Fourth Estate.
Cawley, R. H. (1993) Psychiatry is more than a
science. British Journal of Psychiatry,
162,
154-160.[Abstract]
de Botton, A. (1997) How Proust Can
Change Your Life. London: Picador.
Downie, R. S. (1994) The Healing
Arts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downie, R. S. & Charlton, B. (1992)
The Making of a Doctor. Medical Education in Theory and
Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eliot, T. S. (1948) Notes Towards
the Definition of Culture. London: Faber & Faber.
Evans, M. & Greaves, D. (1999) Exploring
the medical humanities. BMJ,
319, 1216.[Free Full Text]
General Medical Council (1993)
Tomorrow's Doctors. London: General Medical
Council.
Greenhalgh, T. & Hurwitz, B. (1998)
Narrative Based Medicine. London: BMJ
Books.
McLellan, M. F. & Jones, A. H. (1996) Why
literature and medicine? Lancet,
348,
109-111.[CrossRef][Medline]
McManus, I. C. (1995) Humanity and the medical
humanities. Lancet, 346,
1143-1145.[Medline]
Neve, M. (1993) Medicine and literature. In
Companion Encyclopedia of the History of Medicine (eds
W.F. Bynum & R. Porter), Vol 2, pp.
1520-1535. London: Routledge.
Porter, R. (1999) Reading: A health warning. In
Medicine, Mortality and the Book Trade (eds R. Myers
& M. Harris), pp. 131-152. Folkestone: St Paul's
Bibliographies.
Rolfe, I. E., Pearson, S., Powis, D. A., et al
(1995) Time for a review of admission to medical school?
Lancet, 346,
1329-1333.[Medline]
Rousseau, G. S. (1986) Literature and medicine:
towards a simultaneity of theory and practice. Literature and
Medicine, 5,
152-181.[Medline]
Smith, R. (1999) Editor's choice
struggling towards coherence. BMJ,
319.
Snow, C. P. (1959) The Two Cultures
and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Steiner, G. (1971) In Bluebeard's
Castle: Some Notes Towards the Re-definition of Culture. London:
Faber & Faber.
Tallis, R. (1995) Newton's Sleep.
The Two Cultures and the Two Kingdoms. London: MacMillan
Press.
Wassersug, J. D. (1987) Teach humanities to
doctors? Says who? Postgraduate Medicine,
82,
317-318.[Medline]
Williams, D. D. R. & Garner, J. (2002) The
case against the evidence: a different perspective on
evidence-based medicine. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 180,
8-12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Received for publication April 2, 2002.
Revision received July 24, 2002.
Accepted for publication July 26, 2002.
Related articles in BJP:
- Highlights of this issue
- SUKHWINDER S. SHERGILL
BJP 2003 182: 373.
[Full Text]