I disagree; not that it is a mental illness but that the third and fourth world suffer equally as the first world. I really don’t think there is much disagreement, I. The medical community, with Jond’s assertion that it is a first world disease. This is certainly not to say to say the developing world doesn’t suffer. Many more times and to a much greater existential extent than we do. But Jond is absolutely correct that these very stressor’s do not permit the introspective angst that we know as depression. I’ll even go so far as to say that people in the developing world are capable of experiencing much more sheer joy, despite their socioeconomic situation, than we are.
This post has reminded me of one of the most deeply impressing stories I remember from my childhood. It's been many years since I last thought about it. A local news channel did a brief story about a homeless family, and the father had bought one of those large styrofoam airplanes and they threw it in a park with such joy. With all the shit they were going through, the seemingly small satisfaction of such a toy brought such great happiness to them all. I was probably 10 years old then, and seeing it made me cry just like I am now.
To say that there's a medical consensus that depression is a "first-world disease" is absolute horsecrap. You're literally arguing the opposite of current medical consensus. Depression as a medical disorder is difficult to diagnose and treat. Like all other mental illnesses. Like everything related to our neurochemistry, it's also something that's been a part of human existence since our ancestors evolved in Africa. So, you certainly can't say that the disorder is something "new", or something that only occurs once you, say, make over $50,000 a year... The fact that we use the word "depression" to describe our deepest and most severe experiences of loneliness and sadness, muddies the water a bit. But the fact is, most humans are broadly similar in their responses to stress. Most humans assuage their natural existential dread through connections with community, family, and religion. Just because someone is poor, does not mean that they are cut off from some emotions, or that they do not feel "the introspective angst that we know as depression". Frankly ridiculous. Poor communities do sometimes have paradoxically-strong community and religious institutions, which helps lessen that introspective angst, but to say that they can't feel it is, wow.
Others have tackled it, but I must also disagree with you here, friend. It helps to remember that depression isn't just feeling blue or down in the dumps -- it is, depending it's severity, an illness that can allow you to have varying physical and psychological symptoms, including: (on the mild end) restlessness, insomnia, irritability, lack of energy or interest in normal activities (and more severely) irrationally angry outbursts, frequent thoughts of suicide, feelings of worthlessness, eating disorders etc. So the sad thing is that poor people who often turn to poor forms of coping (like drug abuse) or have other antisocial behaviors due to mental illness are usually criminalized, which causes a downward spiral. Because I tell you what: being tortured in prison is really bad for depression.
Let me try to respond without getting personal or emotional. I think maybe I overstated the case, and that possibly you jumped on what is principally a semantic point. I speak not as a medical professional nor academic but as someone who has fought depression for over 25 years. Major Depressive Disorder, having its roots in neurochemistry, genetics, with stressors ladled on, does not discriminate between the rich and poor. The broadcasting of what would seem to the impoverished, trivial concerns, and the extent to which Europeans and North Americans shell out money for treatment of such, is what I was mainly referring to. Having said that, I am not trying to minimize the concerns of those with "first-world problems" merely put them in perspective. In the hierarchy of needs, there is very little that our culture wants for. Paradoxically, we find an immense amount of suffering among our population. This from Psychology Today: Yes, people can catastrophize inconveniences unworthy of such strong emotions, and no, that's not healthy. Focus on the fact that it's not healthy and remember that a sneer does not exactly engender positive, healthy development. The human species has survival mechanisms suited for more primitive existence. The Industrial Revolution and Age of Information have not had time to evolve those away. Because we are still wired for specific stress reactions, stressors can activate primal responses like fight-or-flight. People in first world countries have greater access to mental health treatment but also show greater susceptibility to eating disorders, certain anxiety disorders, and other difficulties than people in underdeveloped countries who struggle more merely to survive. Their struggle for existence fits the survival mechanisms we've inherited. While condescension toward those who bemoan their first world problems might appear to show consideration for those who face third world problems, it really mocks us all for having inherited a set of neurological responses that need someplace to go. To briefly address your post in reverse order: Just because someone is poor, does not mean that they are cut off from some emotions, or that they do not feel "the introspective angst that we know as depression". I don't think I really said they couldn't feel strong emotions. But I grant you that what I said was poorly worded. Let me amend it by saying that people in a developing society are less likely to be concerned by the stressors we feel in the first world. The fact that we use the word "depression" to describe our deepest and most severe experiences of loneliness and sadness, muddies the water a bit. But the fact is, most humans are broadly similar in their responses to stress. Most humans assuage their natural existential dread through connections with community, family, and religion. I can't find anything in this paragraph I disagree with. But it doesn't really acknowledge, though I know this wasn't your intent, that there are some who find these methods less effective, given their predisposition to clinical depression. Depression as a medical disorder is difficult to diagnose and treat. Like all other mental illnesses. Like everything related to our neurochemistry, it's also something that's been a part of human existence since our ancestors evolved in Africa. So, you certainly can't say that the disorder is something "new", or something that only occurs once you, say, make over $50,000 a year... Really kind of hard to state emphatically that depression, as we refer to today, has been part of the human condition since we evolved in Africa. I doubt all the data is in. To say that there's a medical consensus that depression is a "first-world disease" is absolute horsecrap. You're literally arguing the opposite of current medical consensus. This is probably the root of our disagreement, and likely your disagreement with the OP, as well. I would still contend that widespread depression (with a small d) is a first world disorder. I acknowledge, though, that, in no way does that represent the medical consensus.
Part of the issue being with the topic being discussed is that the threshold for being depressed is likely lower here than it would be in a third world country, or for a poor person in the USA. In many cases a person suffering from what would be considered depression in the USA is simply considered weak if the his circumstances are different (living in war zone for ex). It is also true that attitudes and rates of diagnosis toward depression have changed dramatically over the past 10-50 years as they have for many other disorders ranging from PTSD to ADHD etc.
What a terrific article. Trained lay-help among poor people could work in the USA, too, but I doubt that the APA would allow/sanction it.
"The data" regarding human existence is in. We are almost identical to our ancestors 200,000 years ago. We have more food, so we're bigger people. We have multiplied more, and have greater genetic diversity, including a smidgen of Neanderthal genes. The peoples of the New World and Australia did spend thousands of years in relative isolation from the gene pools of Europe/Asia/Africa but obviously have since been brought into the collective gene pool. Isolated populations of people developed different phenotypes (e.g different skin colors, etc.), but such peoples have intermingled, and in any case were never unable to interbreed with other populations, no matter how long their environmental isolation. Our brains in particular, are basically the same. The cavemen painting those pictures of animals in France knew what death was, and so do we. It's important to remember that we are animals, and animals evolve slowly. "Let me amend it by saying that people in a developing society are less likely to be concerned by the stressors we feel in the first world." I mean, technically? A person struggling on the street in Mogadishu is not struggling with how to make his mortgage payment on time like an accountant in Colorado. They're under different stressors. But both people will respond to the stressor in physiologically and psychologically-similar ways. Maslow's Hierarchy is a purposefully simple tool that neglects mental and emotional wellbeing. It also drastically undervalues human social connections, and the fact that it exists as a convenient checkbox system for human existence does not make it gospel. Humans are social creatures, and that is a through-line that is constant throughout human existence. Humans lived at subsistence-level for tens of thousands of years. Heck, it takes till 1895 for the average person in the Western world to live under better conditions than today's bottom-of-the-economic-scale billions living on ~$2 a day. Yet throughout that timescale, cross-culturally, and across economic systems, humans have banded together to form communities and religious institutions. And that's despite an even more disparate set of stressors than the ones facing people on the planet today. The caveman facing a sabretooth tiger is not facing the same stressor as an ancient Greek citizen or a modern American. You're right in that this is largely a semantic issue. But just because the problems are different does not mean that the responses are. I don't know whether or not the Western world suffers from "widespread depression", or whether societies have simply become more aware of it, like PTSD or autism. But if it exists now, it existed then. We're too similar for this not to be the case.
Naw communist block 2nd world status... though technically 1st, 2nd and 3rd world is no longer politically correct.
Okay full blown nerd alert... Normally, I use BigSoccer as sort of a mental hiatus from my work and the book that I’m writing about - in the shortest way, I can describe it: Veterans discovering a post-traumatic growth Self after combat trauma and homecoming. Thus, let me say, outside of my family, this is everything my life, both personal and professional revolves around. Let me also preface that I do not argue Depression or MDD from the medical standpoint. I am not a psychiatrist - MD. My credentials is that of an LCSW and psychotherapist. So, I stay more in line with the person-in-environment, strengths-based, systemic perspective... Okay, that aside... What is Depression? What is Anxiety? Let’s understand it from an emotional regulation standpoint.... But first let’s identify the primary emotions and their functions: Happy - the ability to experience joy, pleasure, etc. Mad - the ability to right injustice and mobilize into action. Sad - the ability to grieve, mourn, and process loss. Scared - the ability to stay alert and stay alive. Of course, there are more emotions than these, but I encourage you to think of these primary emotions like the color wheel. Just as there are nearly infinite types of color, however their root origins from the red, yellow, blue, the same for emotions... Depression is the absence of inability to experience emotions. Anxiety is the opposite. It is the flooding of one’s emotional system. The dysregulation that occurs that leaves us feeling overwhelmed. So, let’s return to how the Primary Emotions and how Depression and Anxiety impacts them. Depression: Happy - Anhedonia, Disconnection. Mad - Surrender, Passivity. Sad - Numbing. Scared - Flight/Freeze. Anxiety: Happy - Mania Mad - Rage Sad - Dysphoria Scared - Terror So, identifying those factors... What’s the goal? The goal in Emotion Regulation is to learn how to “Pace one’s emotions.” As a therapist, one of the techniques I try to employ is to act as a pacer for my client’s emotions, help them identify this skill, and learn how to pace themselves. Thus, I look at Depression and Anxiety more as a state of a dysfunctional Emotional System. We all need to be able to EXPERIENCE (Fight against depression) and we all need to REGULATE (fight against anxiety/flooding). Ultimately, this is a basic character fitness skill. Which, I identify the 7 basic character fitness skills in these spheres: Emotional - emotions and feelings Mental - the cognitive: thoughts, beliefs, insight, judgment, intellect Behavioral - acting according to value systems Physical - all parts of me that is organic: nutrition, exercise, medications, etc. Occupational - industry and meaning in work. Relational - connection with external systems. Spiritual - connection with internal systems. In other words, I identify mood-related issues into a category that is a fitness skill that a person builds over their life time. Think of it like anything else. Your parents are supposed to teach you how to feed yourself, dress yourself, and make it in the world of people and things. But how many people are taught how to experience and regulate their emotions? How many people have skilled teachers show them the tricks of the trade? In truth, when it comes to emotions, we have a lot of adult-children teaching the youth of today, and that’s why many people don’t know how to process their emotions. Simply, the role of therapist is to act as sort of surrogate authority figure that teaches these character skills. Where the person can learn how care for themselves. Now, there are two major problems that I believe cause a lot more problems that stem from the therapist and mental health community. First, the Feminist Model... It’s true that Social Work and much of modern therapy has a root in Feminist Theory. It’s done a lot of good work in the field of psychotherapy. But it has also become a cancer because it has ignored the benefits of Masculinity in the field. In short, people seek the archetypal Mother, to tell them, “it’s okay, I love you, I’ll care for you.” However, people seek the archetypal Father, to tell them, “I’m proud of you, you are capable, you can do this!” People need both archetypal Parents. Unfortunately, people are not hearing that archetypal Father inside of them much anymore - and this has created a epidemic of persons who believe themselves as victims, rather than as capable persons. Secondly, the disease model. Although, psychiatry has its role in mental health. Especially, in cases of psychosis and other more severe and persistent mental illness. But a strict medical model is counterintuitive to many mental health issues, such as trauma, grief/loss, anxiety, and depression. That doesn’t mean it’s not helpful but it shouldn’t be the main effort - so to speak. Why is this though? Because people learn to identify based on their mental health issues. For example, working with veterans, I try to teach them that they are a Warrior. They are not PTSD or any other combat-related psychological burden (Traumatic Bereavement, Moral Injury, Spiritual Trauma, Complex trauma, readjustment distress, depression, and adrenaline addiction). It should be pointed out the difficulty of this task... there is a self-fulfilling prophecy where people lose their True Self by identifying with their symptomology. That’s what we want to break away from. So, people must learn to identify with their values, their ideals, the person who they want to be - with grace and accountability. In veterans, I call this person, the Elder Warrior. My role as the Therapist is to help them as the archetypal Guide, walking with them on their journey, to discover this person. What I have found is that clients have significantly more positive outcomes than anything that teaches them, you’re a victim, ill teach you some coping skills, but nobody expects much out of you. No, people need to know that they have purpose. Like Viktor Frankl’s work in Logotherapy and his book Man’s Search for Meaning, man must find that thing that he must live for. I confess that I must live by my Elder Warrior creed everyday. Am I perfect? Of course not. But I know that person now. I have learned skills that helps me find peace with my past, purpose in my future, and how to actively live in the present. When I screw up... I get down and out, or I lose my cool. I just say, okay, I didn’t like how I handled that. Let’s turn that loss into a gain. And let’s return to that Elder Warrior.
People need both archetypal Parents. Unfortunately, people are not hearing that archetypal Father inside of them much anymore - and this has created a epidemic of persons who believe themselves as victims, rather than as capable persons. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/...w-canceled-coronavirus.html#commentsContainer My comment on the movie was "well done". Actually, I had a longer comment written out and thought the better of it and deleted it. Ironically, feminists find themselves in the same position Freud was in over a century ago. He could drag things along up to a point..... and then he'd have to put the spilled toothpaste back into the bourgeois tube if he were to have any hope of continuing on his quest. Feminists have much more power.
since there’s no soccer to talk about... I have not watched that movie, but personally, I think Freud gets too bad of a rap by Feminist Theorists. Part of the matter that people need to remember, what Freud suggested was very cutting age at the time, and his contributions shouldn’t be underestimated. On this point though, I realized that Freud’s work was not so much wrong, but incomplete. For instance, one of my contributions from Freud is on the subject of Drive Theory. According to Freud, which he elaborated in wonderful detail in Civilizations and it’s Discontents, that humans are driven by two basic drives: The Eros Drive and the Thanos Drive (or Thanatos... Thanos is just less clunky). Now, I remember being the only straight male in my Social Work class, and I recall all of these feminists balking at this theory. Essentially, saying... this is what Freud said. Dumb, right? Well, I didn’t think it was dumb at all. I believe it is absolutely accurate... at least for me. Sex and Violence pretty much sum up my what drives me. It also makes sense in a mythological sense, considering the love affair between Aries and Aphrodite. Yet, these feminists weren’t having it. To them, it was something that needed to be called out and indoctrinated into every student as a falsehood. This got me thinking... Maybe, Freud was talking solely about what drives men? What if... women are driven by different Drives? Besides, I have never met any female, no matter how hyper-sexual, who goes around saying, I just need some dick. Sex - obviously has a different meaning to females than it does to men. I tell my (male) clients who complain that their wives won’t have sex with them. They have to stop thinking about sex like a man does. For instance, my wife knows, I could be bleeding from the head, and she says, want to have sex? And my pants will be down, ready to go, before she finishes her sentence. As a man, it takes me very little to do the deed - it’s like eating a hamburger, and man, I’m hungry. But sex doesn’t mean that to my wife. To her, it’s a means of feeling special, connected, safe, and comfortable to open herself up, and receive my adoration towards her. In other words, women think about sex much more deeply than men do. And if men forget that, their sex lives will suffer. More so, I have never met a female, who wants to hunt men down and kill them in close combat. Even the women who have been in combat, it’s always defensive - at most. Never offensive. And never excessive. There’s something instinctual missing that doesn’t enable them to feel that urge to want to kill others. Hence, it makes sense that the overwhelming majority of violent crimes are committed by men. It’s also why young boys are at high risk to injury because they are for more likely to engage in risky behaviors than females. Therefore, it should be concluded not that Freud was wrong. He got the male drives pretty well. He just missed what drives females. So, returning to the question... what drives women? There has been limited study on the matter. What I have explored, much has come from the work of Carl Jung and his study of the female archetypes, to what I have theorized as the four basically female Inner Drives. The Helen Drive - Based on Helen of Troy, the desire to be adored, valued, and a symbol of beauty, civilization, and object worth fighting for. The primary sexual drive of a woman, and the part of a woman that seeks male authority. Also known as the Queen Drive. The Eve Drive - Based on the Biblical Eve, the desire to be independent, and a symbol of feminine authority and autonomy. Rejects male authority. Sex is rejected if perceived as a means of being conquered. Also known as The Feminist Drive. The Gaia Drive - Based on the Greek Myth of the Great Mother, the desire to be nurturing, empathic, and raise family. Sex is a means of procreation and peacemaking. Also known as the Mother Drive. The Artemis Drive - Based on the Greek virgin goddess, the desire for purity, creativity, and maidenhood. Sex is terrifying or repulsive. Also know as the Chastity Drive. Now, returning to the Male Drives. I once was questioned why do women have more drives then men? It stumped me. I didn’t want to take away from the Feminine Drives, but it got me thinking about the Male Inner Drives... So, there’s the Eros Drive - the desire for sex. And the Thanos Drive - the desire for death, destruction, and violence. And I returned to Carl Jung’s work and what caused him to split from Freud. It made me think of his work on the Cosmic Man. Ultimately, the Cosmic Drive is the man’s drive to realize himself inside his existence in the world. In other words, his Destiny Drive. The thing that Joseph Campbell would call, his call to Adventure. Furthermore, it relates to the Biblical story of Abraham - and becoming the Father to Man. Essentially, the Cosmic Drive is the Inner Drive that compels man to grow up and to make it in the world of people and things. In contrast, the counter to this Drive was originally based in Abraham Maslow’s work on the Jonah Complex. A story that’s always personal to me, having deployed to Mosul (Nineveh) and relating to the story. That said, I didn’t like the name - Jonah Drive. So, I thought of Dan Kiley’s Peter Pan Syndrome, and developed the Pan Drive - Man’s drive to remain the eternal boy, to never grow up, and to refuse the call to adventure. Ultimately, each man must face the tug of war between The Cosmic Drive vs his Pan Drive. Either he will grow up, embrace his manhood, or fail to remain the eternal boy. In society, we witnessed many males with an overactive Pan Drive compared to the Cosmic Drive - when past the age of adulthood, they remain concentrated on the things that matter to boys and not men. In short, the man’s inner drives The Eros Drive The Thanos Drive The Cosmic Drive The Pan Drive And the woman’s inner Drives The Helen Drive The Artemis Drive The Gaia Drive The Eve Drive But one other point... Do men and women share some traits of each? Yes! Carl Jung proposed the Anima/Animus. Each man has an anima and each woman has an Animus. Personally, I like to call it the Masculine Heart and the Feminine Heart. Each person is imprinted by a Mother and a Father. These things cultivate inside of a person - yet, a person presents primarily with their assigned gender. Therefore, most men identify with the Masculine Drives and women identify with the Feminine Drives. But it’s also why men are able to be compassionate. And women are able to be aggressive. Although, neither are able to be as fully the other gender, as they’re own gender. Ultimately, these Inner Drives develop the Personality Type. Yet, that’s a discussion for another day.
I like your conclusion on the 'heart'. I'd question the Cosmic v. Pan drive. I would suggest instead that we are attached to our evolution. Our psychological profile seems to be reflected in our recent history which divided labor between hunter and birther, male and female. As we continue to evolve, we find that there are conflicts between our old arrangements and new circumstances. In my view, because the world is changing so fast (new circumstances at a faster clip), what matters most is absolute tolerance. The film in the link is very short(13 minutes) so you should watch it.
More than PTSD, I say working with mostly young male vets; there’s a much more prominent psychological condition they struggle with... I call it CPS. Crazy Pussy Syndrome. lol In all seriousness, it’s amazing how many young men (and women) struggle to build healthy relationships and seem drawn like a magnet to toxic relationships. It’s important to help people identify these habits, understand what they’re seeking (psychodynamic approach), and repair one’s attachment style to develop a secure attachment and seek others with a secure attachment style.
I’ll watch it. the desire for tolerance is associated with the Gaia Drive. The Cosmic and Pan Drive are associated with male maturity and the desire to mature into one’s destiny, realizing one’s full potential, and answering the call to adventure versus the desire to remain the eternal boy, refuse the call to adventure, and remain passive. Ultimately, Civilization represses the Primal Self. This was much of Freud’s premise is Civilizations and its Discontents.
Which is interesting because, in my family, my mother taught us to be aggressive and pursue our destiny to be great while my dad taught us compassion. Not that dad was a wuss in American parlance - he bought me a .22 at age 10. I have no problem with anything you say. I would simply suggest that the world is changing very fast and coming to new arrangements, which may be forced on us, will probably require a good deal of tolerance. My way of thinking tends to move along the same lines as Michel Foucault but I went thru a period of reading all of Freud's works and I liked him a lot because I understood the difficulties he faced and I knew that he himself questioned his views and knew that one day his works would be replaced by science. As an aside, I noticed in the film that the producer says Dora is the only one of Freud's 5 major works which treats a female. My recollection is that Freud's first important case was Anna O which describes a case of hysteria in a woman who is a caregiver for her sick father.
Self-victimization has become a dominant mode of discourse within American culture. One sees it in people from two parent homes, in addition in those from one parent home. One sees from people on right, in addition to those on the left. The current president based his campaign on victimization and his mode of discourse is self-victimization: the media, the deep state, the fbi, that guy from cnn, etc.. Imo, there are larger forces at play. Feminism is not so important.