The thesis

There is a simple thesis which one can try and defend: Modern psychiatry broadened the definition of what counts as, say, depression in such a drastic way that anything which resembles any kind of sadness is seen as depression. Allan Horwitz and Jerome Wakefield in their Loss of Sadness (2007) states it simple: “normal” sadness (which has a cause (say, the untimely death of my dog)) and “abnormal” sadness (which does not have a cause, which is normally seen as a disorder) is conflated in psychiatry. One can state without controversy that modern “normal” sadness have been medicalized and pathologized. But this seems to be only a small problem. Behind this problem, which is the thesis of this piece, looms the problem of our obsession with authority. What do I mean with this? Simple: We are currently in a situation where the division of labour* has gone so far that the normal layperson on the street don’t know anything of, say, the sciences etc. The only thing he/she can do is blindly trust in this “authority” figure (of science). The same with mental illness: we are told what to feel and if we feel something else, we are “coerced” into taking medication to “rectify” our way of thinking. The question: Can we break this invisible chain which this authority figure strangles us with?

*Division of labour is, say, when a society specializes in such an advanced way that “laypeople” are rendered down to a state of unknowing, i.e. the normal person does not know how to grow his/her own food, not how to make a phone. Each individual is simple a cog in a machine, performing simple tasks without knowing how the bigger machine works.

Breaking the invisible chain

It is simple how to break this chain: start by questioning everything. This may seem laborious. It is not for everyone. There will always be those who do not care about how they are treated, so long they stay alive with moderate success (in monetary terms). This is not for them. Those who cannot sit by are the sceptics, the inquirers and the philosophers. By simply questioning everything, the system will buckle and tumble down. Why do I say this? The answer is simple: the system was created with the idle in mind, or more controversial, it was put in place in order to create an idle society. See the following example. A person of 40, losing everything, job, money, family etc., attempts suicide, fails, and ends up in a mental institution. This person is diagnosed with depression and given an anti-depressant. One can easily question if this is really the correct diagnoses, will the medication take away the depression, if in the first place there was an external cause to the depression?

Take another example. A person has a heart attack. The person eats unhealthily (i.e. fast food and sugar drinks), never exercises, and spends the whole day in isolation. The person is probably prescribed medication, given a pamphlet of some sort and released. The medication will heal the person. There seems to be a problem with both these “solutions” to the problems. (Not every case will be handled like this, the situation is more complex, but this is what happens in a lot of instances.) I am reminded of a quote by Luhrmann (in Of two minds (2000) p.292-293): “We are so tempted to see ourselves as fixable, perfectible brains. But the loss of our souls is a high price to pay.” We can say the same with our bodies. The situation is complex. A pill of any form won’t be the only situation, the same with any panacea or super-food. We are seduced by the authority that lingers behind some of these “solutions”. Because a doctor with publications in recent journals said this pill is “good” does not make it good. (This is a classic appeal to authority fallacy.)

It is more complex, it seems, than to just start questioning everything. This will make you look like a fool (in some cases). The problem here, it seems, is that of our autonomy. Should we be autonomous figures? That is a question for another time, let us agree, for the sake of brevity, that we are autonomous, and that we need to be autonomous. Anything taking away from my autonomy, is not a good thing. Modern “authority” figures are currently taking away our autonomy for the simple reason that they make us out as “unable” to think for ourselves, and because they “know” we should just accept.

The problem of Autonomy and Authority

There seems to be a simple problem here: with the introduction of authority figures, we are steadily losing our autonomy. See for example again the example of the suicidal person, mentioned above. He/she is unable to make the autonomous choice of dealing with the “depression” him/herself because “authority” figures told him/her to take this medication because he/she is suffering from depression. A quick solution to a very complex problem. If understood in a different way, we can easily say that this person is not suffering from a mental disorder which needs medication, but rather that he/she has a reason to be suffering from depressive symptoms. If we say that it is irrational to be depressed in his/her situation, and that this person needs medication, we are missing out on a big part of the context he/she is finding him/herself in.

The autonomy to chooses how to deal with this problem is not discussed. A simple quick fix of symptoms is the only answer, in some cases the only solution. The person is seen incapable of choosing, he/she is a deviation of what is seen as normal and needs “rectification”. The medicalization and pathologizing of our everyday feelings etc.

The answer is more complex

We are obsessed with authority. What someone in the sciences says is true, what this or that journal says is taken as truth, without any grains of salt. We instinctively trust a doctor, we do not fear those who can show a degree from a famous institute. This resembles religion in too many ways. Modern society has become immune to scepticism. “Healthy scepticism” has become a sin, questioning has become a sickness. By medicalizing and pathologizing every human trait, those in authoritative positions has successfully rendered any deviation from the “normal” a sickness that needs rectification. This statement seems controversial on face value, but how many people amongst us are using some kind of medication to “alter” some trait that is said to be “deviant” from the “normal”? By simply questioning the seemingly obvious, we can start to take back autonomy. Let us not give away the last thing they so desperately want.