I’m a fan of Freud. Despite a lot of funny ideas, his investment in self-awareness – and his method of attaining it, free association – makes him a crucial figure in the enlightenment of our species. Nonetheless, we live in dark times. I’m not a pessimist about nature, but I don’t believe in the progressive arc of history. As Freud himself asserts, human beings have to work to improve themselves. I take this to be true writ large. Without a vast, shared commitment to better our world, we will doom ourselves to horrors old and new. And a sentiment of shared commitment seems to be waning.

As always, though, bad news spells opportunity. In times of darkness, great minds usually arise to challenge the status quo; Freud himself is an example of this. Surprisingly, then, Freud’s philosophy is at the heart of the most scathing critique of modern society I have seen in some time: Adam Curtis’ The Century of the Self.

Curtis doesn’t take issue with Freud’s ideas directly. He attacks them for their consequences. If you have any interest in Freud whatsoever, you MUST watch this documentary. Here is Curtis in his own words:

I don’t say there was a conspiracy but that consumerism had an ideology just as much as fascism or communism did. It was another way of managing the masses in an age of mass democracy. People like [Edward] Bernays were the first architects of that. And the model they used was fundamentally the pessimistic Freudian view that we are just emotional, irrational creatures and nothing more…

Bernays [Freud's nephew] provided the ideas that were used by the US government, big business, and the CIA to develop techniques to manage and control the minds of the American people. But this was not a cynical exercise in manipulation. Those in power believed that the only way to make democracy work and create a stable society was to repress the savage barbarism that the psychoanalysts told them lurked just under the surface of normal American life…

What happened was that a group of psychoanalysts took what Bernays had begun and invented a whole range of techniques to get inside and manage the unconscious mind of the consumer. By the early 50s the ideas of psychoanalysis had penetrated deep into American life. The psychoanalysts themselves became rich and powerful and had many famous politicians, writers and show business celebrities as patients. And, as their ideas took hold, a new elite began to emerge — in politics, social planning, and the business world. What linked them was the assumption that the masses were fundamentally irrational. The way to manage a free market democracy, like America, was to use their psychological understanding to control this irrationality in the interests of everyone.

This may sound a bit marxist for your tastes, with its powerful elite controlling the minds of many. But Curtis is really the opposite of a conspiracy theorist – he’s interested in the consequences of good intentions. With an eye and ear for breathtaking historical detail, he illustrates how Freud’s followers undermine the notion of public good.

It’s safe to assume Freud would be horrified by Curtis’ picture. Freud meant to demystify the unconscious, as a way of freeing us from pain and misery. But his savviest disciples proved to be master manipulators. More shillers than healers, they used Freud’s theories to toy with the unconscious instead.

Curtis’ history is beyond shocking, if only because none of it is secret. He weaves together a grand narrative that seems utterly obvious and yet painfully fresh. Yes, it is true: Freud is the great uncle of public relations, the grandaddy of consumer culture. Watch The Century of the Self and you’ll be convinced.

Part One: Happiness Machines

Part Two: The Engineering of Consent

Part Three: There Is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads He Must Be Destroyed

Part Four: Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering

Read Full Article

[A fun read on the benefits of mental unrest. When hypomania looks like an asset, can we call it a "disorder"? (After all, it's in the DSM-IV.) This question is a bit of a red herring; it poses a dichotomy where none exists (i.e., you're either sick or you're not). The trickier and truer question is, if illness has its benefits then how should we treat it? Hopefully no one would want to "cure" a successful entrepreneur like Seth – except, perhaps, his future wife and family. According to the article, he sleeps at the office and works every waking hour. He doesn't even bother with friends.

This may work for him now, but will it always? That's up to him, I suppose. But a determination to avoid hypomania's drawbacks, in this case anyway, can be seen as a drawback itself. It's understandable why Seth doesn't pursue relationships – he sounds terrible at them. But life demands a certain kind of mental flexibility. It's nigh impossible to avoid change, even in the realm of our own desires.

I hope I don't sound like I'm pathologizing Seth. Barring the violently ill, treatment only belongs to those who seek it. What I'm advocating for, really, is a more fluid concept of "mental illness" in the first place. Illness needn't be a burden or an albatross. Often, as in Seth's case, we may prefer to think of it as a "condition" instead. However we classify them, though, states like hypomania should be recognized as such. Hypomania may be a gift to Seth right now, but – like all gifts – it may come to feel like a curse in other arenas. Such is the nature of reality itself, not just mental illness. -Ed.]

photo: Man & Wifey

Read Full Article

[I don't want to suggest that buying an iPad is an act of murder, but in our ever-demanding quest for cheaper products, we're the ones forcing big business to "externalize costs." (Watch The Story of Stuff for an excellent illustration of this phenomenon.) If an iPad seems miraculously cheap, it isn't – someone, or something (the planet, say), is paying the price for your savings. The notion that everyone should be able to afford an iPad is delightfully democratic. Unfortunately, citizens in any fairly representative government wouldn't stand for conditions like Foxconn's. Democratizing technology seems at odds with democratizing the world. -Ed.]

Popular Drugs May Help Only Severe Depression

A headline from two years ago in Nature:

SSRIs show efficacy over placebo only in the most severely depressed patients

Drug companies exaggerate and even fictionalize their drugs’ benefits. This is not news.

I’m not against the use of these drugs, but their reckless promotion leaves a sour taste. Who are these drugs made for, exactly? When I take one of these pills, who stands to gain? These are always good questions to ask. Pills can work, and in the severest cases they’re necessary despite risks. But in the battle for peace of mind, no drug is an easy answer. Adam Phillips says it best: “Havoc is always wreaked in fast cures for confusion.”

[Update: As usual, Jonah Lehrer has a clever take from a year ago. -Ed.]

‘The idea that a drug designed to alleviate physical pain should reduce the pain of social rejection seemed simple and straightforward based on what we know about neural overlap between social and physical pain systems. To my surprise, I couldn’t find anyone who had ever tested this idea,’ DeWall said.

According to a study due to be published in the journal Psychological Science, DeWall and colleagues were correct. Physical and social pain appear to overlap in the brain, relying on some of the same behavioral and neural mechanisms…

Hurt feelings and social pain decreased over time in those taking acetaminophen, while no change was observed in subjects taking the placebo. Levels of positive emotions remained stable, with no significant changes observed in either group. These results indicate that acetaminophen use may decrease self-reported social pain over time, by impacting emotions linked to hurt feelings.

‘We were very excited about these initial findings,’ DeWall said.”

Read Full Article

[Because emotional pain feels less localized and more abstract, we're inclined to disregard it as something different from "real" pain. We take it less seriously as an injury – i.e., as a treatable medical condition. These findings are a nice counterpoint to that impulse. -Ed.]

I pride myself in keeping an open mind about mental illness, but I have to admit that it’s tough to watch this video without feeling a pang of conservative rage. Where are we going with all of this? Are we so desperate and starry-eyed that we’re willing to experiment on our own children?? Don’t they deserve a more cautious approach?!??!?!

I’m not quick to judge any of the parents. My heart goes out to them. I’ve never had a kid, let alone one with mental illness. But I do know something of the helplessness that surrounds families in the midst of these crises. It’s a God-awful experience – and a dangerous one, too. Feelings of abject helplessness lead to extreme vulnerability. And that’s exactly what you see in this video: vulnerable families being pressured into troubling treatment, all at the behest of powerful institutions with their own interests to weigh. I’m not skeptical of doctors or “experts” (that’s a strain of American fundamentalism I could live without), but at the same time we have to recognize our respective roles. A child’s care is the sole responsibility of his or her parents. The educational system and the health care industry, despite what they advertise, were not designed to care for any particular child. Those institutions have competing priorities (the profit initiative, organizational flow, etc.), including millions of other kids. What is good for a school or a doctor’s office might be at odds with what is good for a child. When it comes to medicating our youth, we should be especially vigilant about these conflicts of interest, and wise to how good people’s judgment can go bad.

Watch Full Video

[Note the segment tiles above the video display; to watch the whole program, click on each segment.]

Read Full Article

[The letters are worth a look as well. And the photo is Freud's couch. -Ed.]

About 6 percent of people were prescribed an antidepressant in 1996 – 13 million people. This rose to more than 10 percent or 27 million people by 2005, the researchers found.

Read Full Article

[About 10% of Americans report suffering from depression, so this new finding shouldn't cause alarm. -Ed.]

From: Douglas Faneuil
Subject: Re: pepsi print campaign
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:56:10 -0500
To: Justin Chen

honestly, my guess is that the person who conceived them is a little depressed.

i know that sounds condescending, but to go from a can of soda to these images — it’s quite a journey.

i try not to take these things too seriously, because believe me i can, but what i find most troubling about these ads isn’t the imagery; it’s the conflation of loneliness with suicide.

when you think about it carefully, what does one really have to do with the other? i actually like the idea of “one lonely calorie.” but suicide? it’s a bit out of left field. i mean, i get the connection. but it’s an unhealthy connection. i think a healthy person would be more skeptical, and ask, “i like the loneliness concept — even a personified, despairing calorie — but suicide? where is that coming from? where is it going? is it saying anything substantive about this calorie’s loneliness? is it even, actually, portraying an aspect of loneliness?”

these ads suggest — pretty deeply, i think — that suicide is a logical answer to loneliness. that’s not a healthy idea, for the individual and society. (and of course it’s not true.)

i’m not coming at this from a moral angle; i’m more of a pragmatist about all this. we get out what we put in.

one can makes jokes about suicide — i make plenty of ‘em in the editing room — but at what expense? i just wish these ads’ creators would acknowledge a cost. and i think if they did, they’d change their campaign.

anyway, thanks a lot for passing them on. i’m starting a blog pretty soon. i’ll post these.

d

On Dec 3, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Justin Chen wrote:

Hey Doug.

What do you think of this print campaign by pepsi?