Introduction
Schizophrenia and schizophrenic patients are always a notably personal matter. I have noticed this among researchers and psychiatrists: no matter how scientific and objective we wish to be, our theories of the nature and treatment of schizophrenia, shaped, as they are, by our psychiatric training and experience, are also influenced by our personalities and life histories. The attitude towards schizophrenia is often influenced by ideological considerations.
schizophrenia is regarded as a clearly organic disorder, with no relation to psychosocial environmental factors. Interactional relationships with other people are part of human biology. They play a crucial role in human psychosocial development and the underlying cerebral functions.
If schizophrenia is related to disturbances of human personality development, as is suggested by psychologically oriented research, it is only natural to postulate that interactional relationships contribute to this pathogenesis, not only on the psychological but also on the biological level.
Brief Overview of Pathophysiology
There are important differences among theorists and researchers in how the distinction between positive and negative schizophrenic symptoms has been conceptualized. In one approach, positive and negative symptoms are viewed as reflecting two different underlying dimensions of pathology that differ in pathogenesis. Strauss, Carpenter, and Bartko ( 1974) described such an approach and argued that it may be more useful to think in terms of three "basic functional processes" (they added a dimension of "disorders in relating") than two different kinds of schizophrenia. They concluded that "such a conception implies that for the most accurate description, all three of these manifestations would have to be routinely evaluated. All three might interact in ways to be determined, and each process might have different etiologies and responses to treatment" (Strauss et al., 1974, p.69). Crow (1985, 1994) also clearly emphasizes dimensions of pathophysiology, rather than types of schizophrenia, although his (perhaps unfortunate) use of the terms Type I and Type II has led to frequent misunderstanding...........
