Is there truth to the "myth" that capitalism causes or boost certain mental illneses? If anything can someone post some papers about it? Are those caused by capitalism or modern society in general?
For some reason my browser froze so I might have posted this more than once. Sorry
I would expect poverty to cause some serious mental problems, harder to pin it down when it comes to stuff like the mentality of pulling yourself by your bootstraps.
Ways capitalism causes mental illness:
intense overwork and alienation lead to stress, depression, anxieties, etc that are bad enough, but can also subsequently trigger worse mental issues
social isolation in the form of homelessness, NEETdom, hikkis, etc caused by the need for a reserve army of labor, causes and exacerbates mental problems, drug addiction
privatized or inadequate healthcare causes people who could otherwise lead a normal life with appropriate treatment and help to go off the rails
just throw all the crazy people in prison lmao
also causes rich people to be delusional and psychopathic, have fake friendships, drug addiction, etc
Lasch's thesis in The Culture of Narcissism is that capitalism in its current form tends to create narcissism, both low-level and pathological.
Economic man himself has given way to the psychological man of our times—the final product of bourgeois individualism. The new narcissist is haunted not by guilt but by anxiety. He seeks not to inflict his own certainties on others but to find a meaning in life. Liberated from the superstitions of the past, he doubts even the reality of his own existence. Superficially relaxed and tolerant, he finds little use for dogmas of racial and ethnic purity but at the same time forfeits the security of group loyalties and regards everyone as a rival for the favors conferred by a paternalistic state. His sexual attitudes are permissive rather than puritanical, even though his emancipation from ancient taboos brings him no sexual peace. Fiercely competitive in his demand for approval and acclaim, he distrusts competition because he associates it unconsciously with an unbridled urge to destroy. Hence he repudiates the competitive ideologies that flourished at an earlier stage of capitalist development and distrusts even their limited expression in sports and games. He extols cooperation and teamwork while harboring deeply antisocial impulses. He praises respect for rules and regulations in the secret belief that they do not apply to himself. Acquisitive in the sense that his cravings have no limits, he does not accumulate goods and provisions against the future, in the manner of the acquisitive individualist of nineteenth-century political economy, but demands immediate gratification and lives in a state of restless, perpetually unsatisfied desire.
From the preface.
That describes me pretty closely. Maybe there's some revolutionary potential in this new narcissism.
Mental illnesses exist and always have, capitalism just makes it 10x worse. It doesn't cause it, it boosts it. It's idiotic to believe that the abolition of capitalism is all it'll take to cure depression, but it'll make everyone's lives a whole lot easier.
I think existential dread regarding the future of mankind & society causes mental damage. People are terrified because of the looming ecological disaster and some are legit falling into depression reading the unceasing train of bad news.
Mental illness is an invention of capitalism. Embrace it
if my entire family gets killed in a freak car accident i won't get depression i swear guys we live in a communist society mental ilnesses are a thing of the past capitalism made mental illnesses
Well, it certainly exacerbetes the symptoms, there are lots of data indicating that poor people that depression and anxiety is more common in low-income households. There's also strong correlations between financial insecurity and depression/anxiety. I don't remember the sources for this though, and i don't have access to the same databases i used to have. There is, however this article which suggest that neoliberal ideology plays an important part in the mental illness of todays youth: jakkkobinmag.com
This doesn't mean that capitalism causes mental illness, but it makes it worse by witholding treatment, its ideology or by creating an environment in which the disease can flourish
That's a normal emotional response, not a mental illness.
Depression is not the only mental illness that exists, also this .
Depression isn't "When I'm sad" it's when nothing has any meaning for you, it's when you believe that YOU yourself are worthless, the whole world is worthless, that there is no point in doing any sort of action.
Even if you are destroyed emotionally and psychologically by any sort of event and unable to function for days, weeks, even months, you will get through it, but those that suffer from depression have no ending like that.
Though to say that "mental illness is an invention of capitalism" is also a load of bullshit. Personality disorders, schizophrenia, emotional disorders, development disorders, etc… are all a thing. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans had laws how one should treat those that are "mentally ill"
And during/after the French Revolution Philippe Pinel took off the chains and manacles off the insane asylum patients and was one of the first to start giving them a more humane treatment.
Putting people under stress tends to promote mental illness. Our shitty healthcare also fails to do much to help people with mental illness too.
Like, the American Psychological Association (APA) recently started calling "masculinity" a mental disorder.
Isn't this phenomenon all explained in Deluze Anti-Oedipus?
ancient Greeks and Romans had laws how one should treat those that are "mentally ill"
The ancient Greeks and Romans had no concept of mental health and mental illness in the strict senses of the phrases, although they certainly did have one of madness. This distinction sounds needlessly picky, but it is important. Madness was reconceptualized over time, within capitalism, as having to do with bodily health, rather than spiritual affliction, and the psychiatric nosology that resulted in "personality disorders, schizophrenia, emotional disorders, development disorders, etc." is largely due to Kraepelin and his followers, not the Greeks or Romans.
The human mind is a fragile faculty. Probably more so than the body.
As someone who has Aspergers, I would rather have cancer than autism. Believe me, I would. Cancer can be cured. And if not, at least you can die. Autism is fatal, but not life-threatening. Your brain is constantly saying "Go left….NO! RIGHT! NO LEFT!", x1000 per second, causing you to doubt every executive move. You know how a task is done, but your muscles cant get the fucking groove right. Alot of people thunk autism is just awkwardness, saying to "cheer up", "gain some confidence", "talk to girls", "youre a smart kid, you could be a professor."
The idea that autism = genius is a gross overstatement. For every autist thats smart as a whip, a dozen others are drooling buffons or "normies" whos mental development is a significant fraction of their physical age.
People who say autism is a gift have NO IDEA what the fuck theyre saying.
They do the same with schizophrenia and split personality disorder, hoping that the poor soul has a reservoir of hidden genius or maternal imprint within them and they turn out to be like every other normie but non-neurotypical.
Your brain is constantly saying "Go left….NO! RIGHT! NO LEFT!", x1000 per second, causing you to doubt every executive move. You know how a task is done, but your muscles cant get the fucking groove right.
Sounds like anxiety, not Asperger's. You should avoid explaining everything about yourself through your diagnosis. Diagnoses are tools for psychiatric treatment, not horoscopes-but-scientific.
Also, trusting that you have a reservoir of hidden genius is just good Stirnerite egoist ethics. You're the Unique One. There are no excuses.
Well what would you call it when someone refuses to wash their asshole because they think it's gay?
Could be a lot of things. That's not what the post described though.
That's masculinity my man. The number of men out there who absolutely refuse to wash their anus and taint because it's gay is ridiculous.
Jesus fuckin Christ. Why is "masculinity" always measured by how crude a man is?
Im a guy and I wash my anus real good. Bc its next to the balls and if a girl is gonna suck me off, I wanna keep my junk as clean as possible. In fact, I think God made a mistake putting genitals so close to the anus.
No I do have autism although my outlook on life causes me anxiety.
But I stand by what I say. Autism is WORSE than cancer.
It's still completely okay to be masculine, but "masculinity that I like" has been renamed "confidence" whereas "masculinity that I don't like" is referred to as (toxic) masculinity. I think it's related to the man-hating that has become somewhat popular in the modern zeitgeist.
Being afraid of The Gay isn't about masculinity. It's about fear of being ostracized.
getting a bit too close to the horoscope effect there
one thing but also sometimes the opposite
"wow that's just like me!"
I don't know if most psychologists would consider larger socio-economic conditions when diagnosing problems. Most people have been more or less trained to not consider that sort of thing almost ever.
Take a look at the Rosenhan experiment: en.wikipedia.org
The Rosenhan experiment or Thud experiment was an experiment conducted to determine the validity of psychiatric diagnosis. The experimenters feigned hallucinations to enter psychiatric hospitals, and acted normally afterwards. They were diagnosed with psychiatric disorders and were given antipsychotic drugs. The study was conducted by psychologist David Rosenhan, a Stanford University professor, and published by the journal Science in 1973 under the title "On being sane in insane places". It is considered an important and influential criticism of psychiatric diagnosis.
Foucault writing is related to this theme - I'd say the most important point he makes is that those in positions of power in society (that is, in positions from which they can mobilize and affect people - biopower) effectively have control over how those people are defined. In this way, they can effect what behaviors are deemed "sane" (often in line with their own activities) as separate from those that are "insane" (and thus can be repressed). In this vein of thinking, one can come to deny the existence of mental illness as an objective phenomenon altogether (though such a theoretical step does not necessarily follow, but can be justified).
I will note that I have been wrongfully sent to a psychiatric ward before. It was a result of counselors (my uni has free counseling services on campus, what else can I afford?) getting really concerned when I discussed my history of suicidal thinking, with interest in moving past the thoughts and getting on with my life unperturbed by them. Even though it was clearly expressed that I had no interest in actually killing myself (ex. no plan, no history of self-harm, etc) the counselors were frightened enough to call "crisis services," who essentially asked similar questions as the counselors had and came to the same conclusion. It was very apparent that competence in the room was lacking - a number of people involved were still training. So that's essentially the story of how the police ended up putting me in the back of a cruiser and shipping me off to a hospital I didn't want or need to be at. (sorry for the blog post, it felt relevant).
things that are good are labeled as good and things that are bad are labeled as bad
what's it like having such a large and manly brain?
That's not what I said. Reread my post carefully.
If you need me to break it down for you: masculinity is still a good thing, but because of the influence of man-hating in our current social zeitgeist, masculinity people like gets called "confidence" as if to hide the fact that it's masculinity, while references to masculinity directly is almost always negative. It's one of those weird social games you get when there's a disconnect between some strong ideology and reality.
Going down the path of punitive psychiatry will alienate everyone except the most hardcore ☭TANKIE☭s.
If you want a socialist future then consider this to be a lesson learned from a failed experiment.
Who are you talking to here?
You completely misunderstand what has actually happened.
It's not "man-hating", it's that the current social zeitgeist has divorced confidence from gender. Without rigid gender roles we are seeing the traditional gender boundaries break down, and now all the parts of masculinity that people like are being adopted by women. It's no longer considered masculine because it's not considered something intrinsic to men anymore. As a result, masculinity has been stripped of everything desirable. All that's left of masculinity is the parts that no one likes, because women don't want to adopt them and men don't want to keep them. If you're someone that actually likes those parts of masculinity, there is seriously something wrong with you.
From the paragraph excerpt, possibly. His position is more than that quote by itself implies, and the argument for his position is longer than a single quote.
There really isn't much of a difference between "confidence" and "bad" masculinity (except in social effect, obviously). It all comes from the same basic assumptions associated with the old male gender role, that of the strong, dominant sex. I'm not even referring to a particular set of traits, I'm saying that masculine guys who are a "good" kind of masculine are almost always called "confident". This could refer to the same damn trait, "good" assertiveness is confidence, "bad" assertiveness is toxic masculinity, "good" leadership is confidence, "bad" leadership is toxic masculinity. The application of masculine traits might be different, but at the end of the day, they're the same traits.
it's that the current social zeitgeist has divorced confidence from gender
Confidence, bravery and the like have long existed separately from gender, although often conceptualized differently for women, and also for different circumstances (e.g. bravery in war vs. bravery in a social gathering). The current social zeitgeist may act on that separation, but it isn't the cause.
As a result, masculinity has been stripped of everything desirable. All that's left of masculinity is the parts that no one likes, because women don't want to adopt them and men don't want to keep them.
In what world has this taken place? At most, this has happened in Anglo-American left-wing social circles, and even then it's a rather halfhearted stripping, unable to extricate itself from wider society or the historical associations of "masculinity," so you have an unending list of positive and negative attributes sometimes associated and sometimes not with "masculinity," leading to a variety of reactions depending on the individual, their cultural milieu, their orientation toward the "good" and "bad" qualities associated with masculinity, whether they believe these qualities can be separated into good and bad, etc., not to mention reactions toward and against the male sex with which the concept has always been associated. If you perhaps stepped outside and talked to normal people rather than other leftists, this would be clear.
There's a well documented correlation between poverty and poor mental health.
If we're going to say that poverty is inherently a part of capitalism then maybe you could say that.
Otherwise, I think there's other psychologist who have claimed that capitalism leads to poor mental health, but I'm not sure what they're reasoning is myself.
There really isn't much of a difference between "confidence" and "bad" masculinity (except in social effect, obviously). It all comes from the same basic assumptions associated with the old male gender role, that of the strong, dominant sex.
When masculinity was strip mined for parts, women took what they liked and left what they didn't - and so being strong is "confidence" and thus divorced from gender, but being dominant is masculine because women didn't want it. In a way, masculinity is being defined by women and by post-masculine men who no longer identify with masculinity due to the aforementioned strip-mining. At some point I expect the reverse to happen to femininity, so all the parts that men like get strip-mined from femininity and the rest is left behind to rot just like masculinity.
In what world has this taken place?
It's everywhere in the Anglo-American sphere, from corporate advertising in Gillette to the APA. It's not quite filtered down through all of society yet, but it's definitely spreading rapidly. And thanks to cultural imperialism, it will be exported to every corner of the globe.
Not the guy you're responding to, but I think you might have a tad idealized analysis of what's going on. Confidence and (a form of) strength have always been both feminine and masculine traits, the difference is what a person is confident of.
The idea that women "left out" dominance beacause they "didn't want it" is ridiculous af and idealizing women. If you look at practically any idealized version of modern women in pop culture from super heroes to fantasy films to pop icons, it's clear that women do want to dominate and fantasize about it. It's just that they can't unless men are willing to go along with it, so it's more beneficial on the whole to label dominance and aggression as "toxic masculinity".
I think a likelier explanation is that as there's less and less need for gendered division of labour our use for masculinity changes, and so it's role and acceptable manifestations are being renegotiated. I don't believe masculinity or femininity as such are somehow breaking down. As long as a significant number of women want men, to be a man has to mean something and vice versa.
I think to call the current atmosphere "man-hating" is a bit hyperbolic, but there is a certain air of hyppocracy around discussions of masculinity. Quite often what is demanded of men is not substancially different from a romanticized versions of traditional masculinity. It's just that women are able to make these demands on a more equal footing. Take any article about how to be a good male ally to Feminism (or just the bulk of discussions in social media), and what's invariably described is a cross between the galant knight and some sort of therapy dog. You must be able to listen and believe women's experiences and not talk back. You must be able to understand that you can't truly understand and then go educate other men on the things you've learned. And you must be able to do this with a pure heart; not expecting any compensation but letting the righteousness of your cause be it's own reward.
It's only natural than a good number of men react negatively to these new demands, tho often in pretty cringy ways. Personally I just say "bitch, get a poodle" and get on with my day.
Unless it's something like Autism / Alzheimers / Epilepsy where something is physically off / wrong with your brain selerating itnfrom the norm
sweet sir i have depression are you denying my condition?
Depression is a sketchy topic because it can be a literal illness caused by chemical imbalance etc but can also be a mindset
Stirnerposter gives me cancer, nothing new on leftypol.
Classic chicken and egg problem. Some instances are caused by a chemical imbalance while others result in one. It seems likely both cases are treated in the same manner
I'll put it this way: confidence isn't a personality trait. A person has confidence in something, they aren't simply "confident". Men being told in various situations to "be confident" carries almost the exact same implications of being told to "be a man" in yesteryear, it's a call to do the whole strong, dominant sex shtick. It's a euphemism. It makes no sense to tell someone to simply "have confidence" unless you're suggesting that they should be confident in their situation regardless of the actual circumstances, which is terrible advice and is basically what Chris-chan does.
Let me OG Stirnerpost - show the newrades how it is done>
The one thing that Capitalism abhors is unproductivity - Man has no place in the system is he's a cog that does not fit the larger clockwork. Thus capitalism turns personal expression into sickness and gladly sells you the cure! Not happy slaving away in an office cubicle? Have some pills! Stressed out? Buy this yoga-mat! Depressed that the future of human kind seems to bend towards endless climate crisis and you realize you're ultimately a powerless little ant, as helpless as the antelope is when caught in the deadly embrace of the Lion? 8 hours of Jordan Peterson seminars will help you! Buy his signartured book!
Was not also homosexuality and deviant gender-expresions made pathological and their cure sold to us? Capitalism defines what mental even is - any thought patter that might threaten it, healthy for the individual or not.
The devious part is that Capitalism can actually turn a profit from repression.
Also, I’d like to point out that there is no such thing as “toxic femininity”. By which I mean that there is no critique of female behavior that I’m aware of, and if you did attempt to construct a critique of the toxic elements of femininity, you’d be immediately regarded as suspect if not shunned as some sort of heretic. Because, once again, I think a lot of the “movement” is motivated not by the academic examination of gender roles, but by man-hate masquerading as theory.
the incentives to use psychiatry for rent-seeking and profit extraction from people who can't really refuse the intervention is quite insidious, left unchecked, but that's a peculiar disease of America's system that isn't nearly as horrible elsewhere in the world. i think the sudden explosion in serious mental disorders (particularly autism) though stems ultimately from the education system. the school system has every reason to invalidate so many excess students that pass through it and mark them as mental defectives. you see then a lot of kids, especially in the '90s, marked with the 'tism when before schools were reluctant to go that far to run unwanted children out (and the schools have the influence to twist diagnoses however they want, if someone goes to a private practitioner or is left to the mercy of CMH). i don't know how it works now, because my interaction with the system was almost all involuntary until adulthood. turns out society really, really doesn't like paying those same people disability bux when they're out of the system, so you have some perverse incentives going on, and it has little to do with capitalism. maybe in a really indirect way the labor pool and thus demands of schools react to market forces, but aside from working people to the breaking point i don't see why capitalism is especially motivated to put people on pills and through therapy. the intense disgust towards anyone who falls into the system is out of proportion to their place in society, even under capitalism and its necessary pressure on the population. there's something else going on.
Being poor also causes family problems which can further exacerbate mental issues
there is a very good talk about the physical impact of depression here youtube.com
There is, but they call it "internalized misogyny".
He's right tho. (until the last four words where he started having a stroke.)
it can be a literal illness caused by chemical imbalance
there isn't actually that much proof for this yet