Like Damasio, Brennan has some far-reaching claims that run counter to many of the theories in her field. And, like Damasio, she seems to make some good points to back up a new theory. I found it interesting how Brennan makes note of our (modern Western society) somewhat unique tendency to erect psychological “boundaries” which we use in an attempt to defend ourselves from the affects transmitted by others. As she puts it, we are “securing a private fortress, personal boundaries, against the unsolicited emotional intrusions of the other.” (15).
While previous societies have typically acknowledged this “collectiveness” of our emotions, we have elected to combat it. She notes, also, that this may have much to do with the pandemic of “new maladies of the soul”—ADHD, CFS, and Fibromyalgia. These newly-emerging disorders seem to be of psychogenic origin-they aren’t caused, necessarily, by genetic factors, but are rather a cultural product. She also speaks at length about depression, presenting it (or at least some instances of it) as psychogenic in origin too. This is to say, some individuals may be depressed not because of an inherent imbalance in their neurochemistry, but because of the way they process affects. She characterizes depression as “anger turned inward” (43). Without an outlet for our anger(and Brennan notes that without the sexism and colonialism of previous ages, we have a lot less outlets), we are forced to turn it inward, in which case it doesn’t typically remain as anger, but morphs into fear/anxiety that we carry with us. In addition to our lack of victims (other than our mommies),our tendency to erect “boundaries” fuels this trend. We simply have no outlet. And sadly, our society has almost uniformly accepted pharmaceuticals as the ideal means to combat depression. So we’re treating a largely psychogenic disorder (psychogenic=caused by the psyche, but with real tangible physical symptoms) with a chemical solution. The repression of anger, and its inward-projection as anxiety, lead to the imbalance in neurotransmitters. It’s been my experience that antidepressants are problematic and ineffective. Perhaps we need to start focusing more energy on fixing the cause of the problem, as opposed to the symptoms.
I also talked about depression and antidepressants in my blog as well. I feel that many depressed patients would benefit tremendously if they were to engage in counseling and psychotherapy that would address their inwards transmission. Because many of these individuals do not have outlets into which they can release their emotions. And when they keep these feelings bottled up, the negative affects of anxiety and fear emerge.
ReplyDeleteYou were right when you brought up the point of treating symptoms instead of the source of the problem. Since we live in such a fast paced society, I think individuals look for “quick fixes”. And it is easier to figure out and treat your symptoms then your problem. Because actually examining and working through the source of the problem takes time that many don’t want to give.
AS you saw in my own blog comment, the argument presented here by Brennan on new disorders and social problems is a strong one based on the available evidence, but I really wonder if the evidence is complete. Most of these problems have long been overshadowed or simply misunderstood, and our culture of documentation and in depth analysis is a relatively new development. If it is true that these disorders and problems have longer roots than Brennan identifies, that makes the drug approach to treating them even more problematic. Of course, if Brennan is right (and she is probably more knowledgeable on the subject than I) then we have a potentially dangerous issue of treating the right problem with the wrong method that might even make things worse as drug dependence and prescriptions continue to grow.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that we eventually "turn" against ourselves emotionally without any sort of emotional outlet, and while somewhat sad, it's an idea that I have no arguments against as it firmly supports my idea that man is a creature who consistently seeks conflict despite claiming to desire peace. However, the idea that this urge to conflict with -something-, even ourselves, means that perhaps peace -is- possible, but it won't be won on the battlefield, it'll have to be won by changing the very way our minds work.
ReplyDelete