Mental Illness as Defined by Capitalism
How do we define mental illness?
It isn't nearly as easy as it sounds. If I'm a workaholic, it means I work "too much" and live an unbalanced life. This could be defined as an addiction, or it might not be depending on the severity of the particular case. On one side of the line I'd have a problem: an addiction that interferes with other parts of my life, and on the other side of the line I'd be thought of as "ambitious" and not having any problem whatsoever. In fact, it would be considered a benefit or even a gift.
Considered to be a benefit.
This is what it really all comes down to. Mental illness is unilaterally defined by society and the capitalist regime that governs it. It isn't a mental health problem unless it interferes with society and creates a situation of unprofitability. ADHD and the inability to focus would not be thought of as a mental health problem if there were a bunch of jobs out there that depended on people being able to bounce around across 20 different tasks without any kind of focus required. We can see that this is often not the case, and people need to focus, so we prescribe things like Adderall and literal amphetamines to battle the 'crisis'.
Not all issues are created equally.
Schizophrenia is a pretty weird one. Does your wall socket talk to you? You might have Schizophrenia. But what does the wall socket say? Weirdly enough, this can often be cultural, with schizophrenics in the USA often hearing voices that condone violence, while someone else from another country might hear the soothing encouragement of their ancestors. One of these is a problem, and one is not. Same issue (hearing voices), but completely different classification of mental illness.
It's weird to think of mental illness in this way.
It means that the way we think of mental illness can completely flip on a dime at any moment given a change in society. For example, autism and the autistic spectrum are far less demonized this day an age as a crippling problem. In fact all the people I know that had kids within the last 5-10 years seem to be popping out children on the spectrum... which... I won't comment on other than to say it's very 'weird'.
Technology can change society.
With all these advances in AI, brain-to-computer interfaces, and everything else, we very well may see certain classes of society that were previously thought to be a burden in need of medication to suddenly be valued members of capitalism (hurray!). If anyone with a mental health issue is suddenly much better than others when it comes to new technology, their "condition" is no longer a burden, but a gift. Like if autistic kids are suddenly running around in the metaverse crushing it by using the new AI tools, suddenly autism is no longer something to be thought of as a "downgrade".
Of course I hate to use this example because it's kinda like, "Oh cool so in the Matrix hellscape of the future some people might be doing pretty good within their new digital prison." It was just the easiest example I could think of on the spot; it doesn't really have to be like that.
For example, if crypto itself ushers in a new kind of cooperative economy that leans heavily away from capitalism in the first place, the entire game can change and our perceptions of who is a productive member of society and who is not: will completely be shifted as well. Humanity is in a completely ridiculous middle ground of volatility right now, and it's very hard to tell where the dust is going to settle once it's all over. I can only guarantee that will be one of the weirdest transitions we monkeys have ever undergone.
Conclusion
Like many things in life, mental illness is completely defined by opinion and the ability to generate wealth within the economy. The difference between an idiot savant (genius) and just a plain 'idiot' can be measured by literal dollars (or in many cases artistic ability, which doesn't always pay well).
The more an illness interferes with our ability to do what society wants us to do, the worse we classify the 'illness'. When this condition bleeds out and starts affecting other people around the 'infected', the problem becomes compounded exponentially and is often thought to be a good justification for institutionalization and the removal of freedom. Of course in these cases often the accused has perpetrated actual crimes against their fellow man and ends up avoiding regular jail due to the condition.
All this being said, there is clearly a massive shift coming in how society and economy operate, and it's safe to say that shift will change many perceptions we have across the board. Speculating on how exactly this will all go down is quite impossible at this juncture, but will become more clear as crypto gains mainstream adoption and legacy systems continue to crumble around us.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
https://twitter.com/1460818780980973570/status/1613994063421706247
https://twitter.com/27706436/status/1614196578239057922
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the people( @hivehotbot, @seckorama ) sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at https://hiveposh.com.
The only way we move away from Capitalism with crypto is if we do away with Proof of Stake as a method of governance. As long as large capital owners have control over the way in which a crypto develops, you still have capitalism. Popular democracy is the only way to avoid this, but large stakeholders in crypto will never let that happen. While proof of stake reigns, there is no foreseeable future in which crypto can work in a truly democratic fashion.
Without popular governance, the 'best' system that will develop is anarcho-capitalism, but inevitably that leads to normal old capitalism as monopolies form and capital accumulates in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
I can't see a way in which we move away from PoS through slow and steady reform. Like all large scale social change, it would have to be done in a revolutionary manner, which would inevitably make capital owners retaliate.
I can see a world in which CBDC (crypto backed digital currencies) are useful in a socialist society, while private ownership is suppressed, and the governance of the currency can be managed in a distributed popular fashion through the technologies enabled by crypto. It would ultimately need to be administered by a worker-managed state to avoid capital strong arming its way back into the picture through their accumulated wealth.
I bet a lot of mental health issues wouldn't even exist if people would be more physically active.
We was not monkeys we are humans from day one on earth
Which day was day one again?
Not that it matters, as the point of calling people monkeys has nothing to do with actual history and is rather a reminder that people are animals and will often cave in to their basic instincts.
Glass half full or half empty.
Dread the day your free thinking would be considered mental illness.
It all depends on whose ox is being gored. History is written by the victors. Value is determined by how much someone will pay, not what it's "worth". Everything is subjective.
It's very interesting to look at things from a different perspective. You, obviously, are very good at seeing them. You should be a writer for that bit..."Things that make you go hmmmmm." Was that Carlin?
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
This is the reason why these times are both scary and exciting! It could go either way. What I fear is accumulating more short term solutions with devastating long term consequences.
Mental illness can be affected by various factors, including social and economic conditions.
Some argue that capitalist societies, which prioritize profit and individual success, can lead to increased stress and pressure on individuals, which can contribute to the development of mental health issues.
However, others argue that capitalism allows for innovation and economic growth, which can ultimately improve overall mental health and well-being. It's a complex issue with multiple perspectives.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Your content has been voted as a part of Encouragement program. Keep up the good work!
Use Ecency daily to boost your growth on platform!
Support Ecency
Vote for new Proposal
Delegate HP and earn more
I am an aspiring psychiatrist and I totally agree.
Looking at the way society behaves towards gender dysphoria now and the way it did before illustrates your point. I the past they would have lumped them in with those suffering from schizophrenia and even given them medication that would have altered their mental state.
I think the key is stability and functionality. Those who have Bipolar affective disorder also have hypomanic states where they can hyperfocus on a task while full mania makes the person interested in following any that appears to the end regardless of what it is.
Really insightful post!!
I would like to suggest that the diagnoses that exist at the psychological level refer to the conditions of rather rare or extreme individual cases. Would you agree on that?
This is because research and the economising of certain research activities reach the general public and (want to) present themselves there as a mass phenomenon so that the necessary funds for researching and answering very specific questions can continue to be pursued.
An example: There are always very few people who cannot walk, see or hear. The majority are not physically disabled. But in order to legitimise expensive research, it must be argued that the use of resources and finances benefits a majority, i.e. that technical progress can unfold to enable the walking-impaired, deaf or blind to live among those who have no such disability. So far so good. In great contradiction to this inclusive idea, however, is the prevention of disabled life, for example through prenatal genetic diagnostics, which contains the basic idea that no human being can be expected to have to live with someone who was born disabled.
The extent to which the prevention of physical or psychological problems can go can be seen in the fact that people who are not disabled are treated like sick people and that technological progress does not stop at healthy people.
Since the disabled minorities are never enough to make enough profit from their few cases, the many have to be convinced that they are also disabled/sick. But because no individual really likes to think or assume of themselves as sick, it must be the many others who are all sick or disabled. If one compares the number of people who are really extremely and acutely ill with the amount of money, buildings, structures and technology on the market, one must get the impression that it is majorities and not minorities.
But of course people can be hypnotised to the point that they think and act of themselves as sick. This could then indeed be considered an attention disorder where it is the pointed focus, not an attention deficit, but an attention excess on a particular thing. Is that what you meant by
?
I attribute the laser-like attention to certain topics to the strong division of labour in modern societies, which show an inability for a more open and broader way of looking at things, i.e. instead of a targeted spotlight, the broadly distributed light. Comparable to a dark room where you switch on the light to see the whole room instead of illuminating individual corners and points with a torch, which always lets you see only partial realities.
Autism seems to be a phenomenon of this civilisational process, because an individual does not need broad-based skills of a sensory and mental nature to make an income and live his or her life, because he or she is surrounded by fragmentary division of labour in which everyone can exercise the narrowed view of their reality without it seeming to do them any great harm. However, as soon as someone tries to break out of their specialisation and take on an a different track one will be faced with the problem which I compare with the biblical metaphor of the tower of Babel. You won't be understood when you act outside of your profession if you are not able to use a language which all people can understand.
In Psychology it is though well understood that the common language is "art". Including music making, painting, sculpting, singing, dancing, praying etc. which is able to heal people. Now, the problem is that "average" societal members are not artists and that an art therapy cannot be a proxy for a life of the individual who is otherwise living in a non artistic environment. Art for the sake of art degenerates into something meaningless while art connected with spirit (religion, philosophy) provides a superstructure to the otherwise un-oriented individual.
Would you agree that we seem to live in a time, where we use "laser focus" and over emphasize attention (seeking)? I very rarely hear and read the expression "let's wait and see." Instead, I see actionism and pressure on many fronts.
I have no idea what "gender dysphoria" means - I assume it has something to do with this topic being spread around the world and people are make believe that there must be interference instead of "wait and see" how a child develops.
Well I agree that some diagnosis of psychological problems is rare. Some are very common all the same and at the same time easy to malinger and the pharmaceuticals does benefit from this.
I hope we can lean into a world where see the chance to take on responsibility and handle it.
Since no one can define mental health, because these soft qualities only ever emerge in the context of the one in whose immediate environment people exist and interact, it is impossible to provide a fixed definition.
Therefore, in the same way, it is impossible to define mental illness.
Everything is an ongoing process, always responding to change and giving its own impulses. Why we nevertheless believe that there are definitions to be fixed in space-time probably has to do with the fact that we live in a society based on the division of labour and therefore meet with mostly strangers who spend limited time with us and therefore look for classifications in order to be able to assess us.
Pigeonholes and labels seem to give people more of this security the less you know each other and have to deal with each other on a daily basis, but are a delusion in my eyes.
How "disturbed" someone is considered depends on how those around the "disturbed" person perceive this disturbance. If one understands normality in the sense that no conflicts should occur, that one acts in an avoidant rather than a confrontational way (as can be observed as a habit in family systems, for example), someone who approaches the conflict in a confrontational or direct way would already be a "disturber". But where the tendency is more towards confrontation, the avoider of conflict would rather be the " disturber".
What is disturbing is always that which goes against the tendency that a group of people habitually exercises. But since groups act separately from each other (the team at work differs from the family or the sports club from what one does at university, etc.), the behaviour of the individual also differs. Since people are able to take on many different roles and perspectives, even without always being aware of it. Schizophrenia is something normal not unnormal, seeing in this sense.
However, there is really no need to worry, as no two people are ever alike. We all have different degrees of concentration and there is no need to divide people into productive or unproductive. Because the unproductive produce something, for example they slow down certain developments, put obstacles in the way (consciously or unconsciously) that impede the overly productive from wanting to advance something too quickly. Such events occur on both a small and a large scale. Ignorance is therefore also a good concept to provide an alternative to the actionists as well as to those who resist actionism.
Fortunately, there is no "one quality" that makes a person successful or unsuccessful, it is a whole conglomerate of qualities that interact with the many qualities of others and influence each other, a basically unanalysable dynamic that, because it defies analysis, is something unpredictable.
I find it is nothing bad to not being able to see into the future. The fun or irritating factor is though, when I believe in the concept of predictability, I might influence the future by this very conviction of mine and fulfill the famous prophecy. LOL
Truth might have been spoken!
https://reddit.com/r/hivenetwork/comments/10bknnu/mental_illness_as_defined_by_capitalism/
This post was shared on Reddit by ( @seckorama ). Register with @poshtoken, sign up at https://hiveposh.com.
It is certainly not easy to define what the changes in progress will lead to, but I think what you write is correct and very interesting.
There will be changes in perception and probably some things will be redefined, I also think diseases in general regardless of whether they are of the mind or of another type.
The only thing we can do is wait and see what the future holds...
thanks for sharing!
Its capitalism, i knew it!
The greatest criticism (from people within the mental health community) of the DSM is that the diagnostic criteria are normative...which is exactly what you are saying.
Does not fitting in, or not being like others, mean one is ill? Does not conforming to a societal expectation also mean that one might be ill? What is the standard?
Some outliers in the profession (Thomas Szasz, ex) would say that mental illness is a societal construct.
I don't know what's true. I think if someone is miserable and feeling like they can't cope, well then that person should get help. If someone is dangerous to others, well then that person needs to get some sort of attention (or maybe incarceration).
Mental illness is funny though. As you describe it here, it has to do with profitability and productivity. That doesn't cut it for me.
Interesting blog.
Psychiatry has a long history of being abused for political purposes. In 1950s, during the Red Scare, some American psychiatrists proposed that Communism be viewed as mental illness (and subsequently institutionalised without that pesky First Amendment issues). Same trick was used by Soviet Union in dealing with dissidents during last decades of its existence.
On a related note, I have read that homelessness issues that plague USA (apparently, much more severely that other countries with similar GDP or standard of living) date from 1970s. Anti-psychiatry movement, which was quite popular among 1960s radicals got great boost with Oscar-winning film One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, especially in California. It led for mental health reforms that seriously limited involuntary institutionalisations, leading to plenty of patients being thrown through on the streets. Interestingly enough, in that particular issue supposedly left-wing radicals found powerful ally in right-wing governor Ronald Reagan, who saw such reforms as an excellent way to reduce tax burden on California citizens.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta