Increased depression resulting from modern society

[bernie14]

I don’t want to side track innonimatu’s thread, which is about the book and one hypothetical viewpoint….but in light of various comments in that thread, I would propose an alternative hypothesis/opinion….

1) it is probably a fact that clinical mood disorders, psychotic disorders, dementia, etc, that is, genetically predisposed conditions which cause debilitating mental/behavioral symptoms, have existed throughout time.

2) it seems as if there has been, as innonimatu mentions, “an epidemic” of new diagnoses of mental illness in recent/modern times….. some may claim it is secondary to better recognition/diagnosis, some may claim that it is exploitation by greedy docs and big pharma ….some might claim people are depressed because of society (poor, hungry, homeless etc.

some as innonimatu seems to suggest, are simply not taking responsibility for themselves, using non existing “conditions” to justify their maladaptive behavior or use some “external” excuse to justify bad decisions, that is “let’s blame this (thought/action) on anything except myself"….. this is the group I’d like to propose the following “hypothesis”…..

back in the day, when our children were routinely eaten by beasts, or villages were raided by barbarians, or multitudes were dying of plague, “common sense” tells us that the incidence of depression was not as high as in these “modern times”……people just accepted their fate, prayed to god or apparently “adapted” and moved on. One could say that ignorance is bliss…..or one could say that human suffering was such that the “comparative norm” which was acceptable AT THAT TIME, is not the same as modern times......

especially in western cultures, we have grown so used to our comforts that “human suffering” has shifted from “my baby was eaten by a lion” to “I can’t buy the newest ipad”…..

here’s the controversial part, (where I most likely lose most of you)…..what is the role of government in this new paradigm…..as government provides more and more to us, are we not giving up our OWN responsibility to learn and adapt and assume responsibility for our own actions? From ANY psychological perspective, people learn via their experiences, people have to make mistakes in order to adapt and assume responsibility for their actions. Without responsibility and consideration towards others, all you are left with psychologically is narcissism and sociopathy as character traits and repression (hiding away in the unconscious mind) and projection (ascribing to others what you really feel unconsciously) as defense mechanisms.

So, the questions include;

is there a correlation between increased “comforts” (as in modern society) and increased mental illness?

As the nanny state gains power, do individuals surrender responsibility, and with it, invite all the aforementioned negative consequences?

Is this all old news or can I get a book deal out of this hypothesis?

 

[emzie]

Depression is probably an umbrella term describing something that can result from many different factors. I wouldn't be surprised if one of these factors could be from culture / society. It's not hard to imagine inducing depression-like symptoms in people by destroying their hope (though this might not be an ethical experiment ) which would not be something you'd often see in a hunter-gather society.

That's speculation though.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think in its core it is really simple. Our minds are not designed to be a part of our modern societies. There are designed for small groups of people (about 300) doing hunting, farming or raids on another group but most importantly being part of a small group which is bound together by destiny and where live is fairly simple.
Everything else does not have to cause mental issues (there is a lot potential for adaption within the mind) - but most logically is way more prone to.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't think it's likely to have changed in percentage terms. Unless that is an effect of environmental contamination. But the recognition of it has certainly changed. Probably in the past the sufferers have just suffered in silence, or been among the many that essentially dropped out of society and lived as paupers and beggars.

 

[emzie]

I think that due to increased recognition, there's also been a large increase in false positives. I'd put a lot of this blame on pharmaceutical companies. As I said in the other thread, there's probably a lot of people who ask their GP/family doctor for anti-depressants based on TV commercials. These people would better served by a psychologist.

 

[Gustave5436]

I think in its core it is really simple. Our minds are not designed to be a part of our modern societies. There are designed for small groups of people (about 300) doing hunting, farming or raids on another group but most importantly being part of a small group which is bound together by destiny and where live is fairly simple.
Everything else does not have to cause mental issues (there is a lot potential for adaption within the mind) - but most logically is way more prone to.

This is a huge issue. Modern life is comparable to caged animals in the zoo; and just as most zoo animals end up depressed, so too do we from the drudgery of bourgeois life.

Authoritarian life has always been unnatural, but late-stage capitalism has taken it to the most extreme of extents. Cramming millions of people into cities, taking their entire lives from them by forcing them to live out their days toiling away in tiny cubicles. It is no wonder that such a miserable state of affairs, which has most of us under constant stress, should be so psychologically damaging. On that note, anticapitalist theory doesn't even need to go the whole "economic justice" route anymore, such simple matters as basic health and quality of life now mandate capitalism's dissolution.

I think that due to increased recognition, there's also been a large increase in false positives. I'd put a lot of this blame on pharmaceutical companies. As I said in the other thread, there's probably a lot of people who ask their GP/family doctor for anti-depressants based on TV commercials. These people would better served by a psychologist.

It should be noted, though, that pills can be a lot cheaper. In a society which fails to ensure basic medical care for itself, that is a significant factor.

 

[timtofly]

I would say that there were depressed people in the past. Why do you think there were so many wars? They usually were not planned out 30 years in the future like some conspiracy theorist say is what happens today in modern economic/warfare.

Neither did they cope. There are records from 2nd century CE Egypt where there were people who lived to their 80's and 70's. The average life expectancy was 40 though. I say that mental disorder was more a cause of this than beast and living conditions. Sanitation and biological diseases maybe, but not more than mental.

I still say that there are humans who like to think that they can control and keep humanity caged up and they are constantly thinking up ways to do that. I still believe that capitalism works and since morals are out and libertarian thought is in then no one really cares about self-control and that is the problem. Capitalism does not work if people at the top are greedy and do not use self-control to keep equality in the mix. If the government provides everything, where is the government going to get the funds. Eventually it will go bankrupt. Self government of and by the people will work as long as the government is limited and people buckle up and show a little self-control, not that everything is victorian, but common sense is the norm.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Gustave5436
I am afraid you let yourself be carried away. As much as you may oppose modern society, we don't have any alternative I know of. Capitalism, Communism, it doesn't matter. Both represent different ways to organize society, but in both you will be forced to do some kind of job and in both you won't be able to freely do whatever you feel like without having to meet certain conditions not every one will be able to meet, possibly including you. And in both you will be "trapped" in a relatively speaking massively populated area where you are "crammed", if you want to be where the action and the vast majority of the job opportunities are. And in both a bulk of rules will be pushed upon you. Everything else just isn't feasible from where I stand. Simply due to the vast amount of people who need to somehow co-exist.

Sure, capitalism may bring some symptoms like stress to an extreme, but it also returns this with on average greater material wealth. And I don't see people choosing a society which offers less material wealth for the sake of less stress, even though this might be actually a wise decision from a psychological point of view.

 

[aelf]

Since there's a lot of overlap between the other thread and this one, I shall quote what I just posted there:

It seems to me that one problem is that a 'functionalist' view of mental health is to some extent arbitrary. Whether someone is functioning normally or not is socially and conventionally defined. If you aren't able to work, say, 9 hours a day and five days week at the predefined times, then you aren't functioning normally; if you are always pessimistic, then you aren't functioning normally. As I see it, such ways of defining normality are problematic, but I guess that is the reality of modern industrial society. So, in light of that, we can't really blame people for taking medication in order to try and be 'normal'. It's not like their employers and peers can generally be expected to be understanding and give them the time and space to adjust.

But since this thread has a more sociological/historical premise, I should add that I think the preeminence of the phenomenon I describe above is a result of the increasing interdependence and integration of individuals brought about by industrialisation and increasing specialisation in a sophisticated economy. I don't think the past was 'better', as coercion (and suffering in general) was likely more pronounced; but I do think that principles of mechanisation and standardisation mean that even the relatively well-off individuals today (who are not prone to simply be killed or enslaved) have little space to decide what he or she should be like or should do.

In other words, I agree that suffering is relative. But with regards to mental health, I think it involves the sense that psychological well-being has not improved as much as physical well-being.

 

[timtofly]

I would also add that in western capitalism, there is not much "down" time. While labor may be less stressful, the demands of instant gratification can be just as stressful.

 

[warpus]

I think there are two main problems at play here. They are both basically related to the same thing: A promise of happiness through consumerism.

Alright, so there is one main problem at play here.. what I just described above. People are told that they're going to be happy if they follow a simple formula: Go to school, try to be popular, get a degree, marry a girl, buy a house, buy a car, have kids, get a dog, work 50+ hours a week, go to resorts for vacation, consume, work hard so you can get promoted and get more money, use that money to consume more, etc.

Buying things doesn't make you happy though. Sure, it might be a temporary fix, but it really sucks as a provider of happiness long-term. People get frustrated with what they THOUGHT (or still think) is a path to happiness and get depressed.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Being jaded about living in an age of consumerism is the source of my depression. It feels that no matter what I do, as I work a lot of hours a week, the rewards on what to spend isn't there anymore.

 

[wolfigor]

One other problem at play in modern societies is that we are constantly bombarded with "ideal models of life" that are far from realistic.
Media (advertisement, TV, etc) push us to consume to conform to unrealistic lifestyles and the largest part of people can't ever reach.
From some point of view, people in middle ages had a much smaller perspective in life with targets easier to reach (e.g. survive until dinner).

Being crammed with millions of other people with little space for ourselves doesn't make things any easier.
I'm lucky to live in a place where it's easy to just move out and enjoy a little bit of solitude.

Being jaded about living in an age of consumerism is the source of my depression. It feels that no matter what I do, as I work a lot of hours a week, the rewards on what to spend isn't there anymore.

If it's so terrible, just leave!
There are plenty of places in Africa where consumerism is far from a reality

 

[Tee Kay]

There are plenty of places in Africa where consumerism is far from a reality

Just because you're poor by Arctic Saudi Arabian standards doesn't mean you can't be consumerist.

 

[BvBPL]

Iis there a correlation between increased “comforts” (as in modern society) and increased mental illness?

An alternative: The comforts of modern society do not cause mental illness, but instead reveal it. Now that people don’t generally need to hunt and gather for food to survive we have the time and ability to look at proving various elements of life, such as mental health.

As the nanny state gains power, do individuals surrender responsibility, and with it, invite all the aforementioned negative consequences?

No. If that were the case, you’d see higher rates of mental illness in comparably developed countries with strong social safety nets and welfare systems (ex. Norway) than in countries with weaker social safety nets (ex. Japan). I didn’t run any numbers, but I don’t see a correlation there.

For your reference, suicide rates by nation:

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/


--

Another reason why there are more diagnoses of mental health issues is because the stigma against mental health issues has diminished. Because of these, people are more likely to discuss mental health issues and seek help for their own issues.

 

[timtofly]

or poor choices?

 

[Phrossack]

I think in its core it is really simple. Our minds are not designed to be a part of our modern societies. There are designed for small groups of people (about 300) doing hunting, farming or raids on another group but most importantly being part of a small group which is bound together by destiny and where live is fairly simple.
Everything else does not have to cause mental issues (there is a lot potential for adaption within the mind) - but most logically is way more prone to.

Precisely what I've been thinking for a long time! The zoo analogy below fits perfectly. Children are raised eating artificial foods, get pumped full of artificial chemicals, their parents are often both working, leaving a lot less family time, they attend school to learn many things that all too often have no connection to their everyday lives (and often do this for well over a decade), get little exercise, and in general lead very unnatural and somewhat unhealthy, dissatisfying lives.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I prefer to suspect that mental illness is just better recognized, just as many other illnesses never existed until the disease was discovered, and then suddenly there were many cases. There is also the consideration that many illnesses were never recognized because the patients died of other causes before they could be seen. If you leave some of the more debilitating illnesses to their own devices, like bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and major depressive disorder, the patients will usually either commit suicide or anger someone who kills them. Also, until the 19th century, most mental illnesses were blamed on spiritual failings, such as demonic possession.

 

[BasketCase]

Or it could be something everybody, so far, has missed. You're staring at it right now.....this very moment, as you read this post, you are looking at the answer.

It's the Internet.

Set the clock back to a thousand years ago. A war in Iraq? Starvation in Ethiopia? Massacre in Rwanda? Most people in England wouldn't hear about such incidents for months or years--if ever. The printed page or the town crier could only dispense a very limited amount of bad news.

Today, we see the entire planet. Instantly. Anything goes wrong anywhere, all of us find out about it in a matter of seconds. Ten million headlines of bad news packed into speedy little banner lines at the top of every web page everywhere. World Trade Center hit by 747's. War in Afghanistan. War in Iraq. Gas is at four dollars a gallon. Global warming. Market crash in Brussels. Pollution in China. BP oil well explodes. Japanese nuclear reactor explodes. Lady Gaga's butt explodes. Justin Beiber wins a musical award. Gas is back up to four dollars a gallon.

Whereas people living in Third World countries have no Internets and don't find out any of the millions of things that are going wrong. We're getting fifty times more bad news today than people ever were. Of course we're going to be depressed!!!

 

[bombshoo]

Or it could be something everybody, so far, has missed. You're staring at it right now.....this very moment, as you read this post, you are looking at the answer.

It's the Internet.

Set the clock back to a thousand years ago. A war in Iraq? Starvation in Ethiopia? Massacre in Rwanda? Most people in England wouldn't hear about such incidents for months or years--if ever. The printed page or the town crier could only dispense a very limited amount of bad news.

Today, we see the entire planet. Instantly. Anything goes wrong anywhere, all of us find out about it in a matter of seconds. Ten million headlines of bad news packed into speedy little banner lines at the top of every web page everywhere. World Trade Center hit by 747's. War in Afghanistan. War in Iraq. Gas is at four dollars a gallon. Global warming. Market crash in Brussels. Pollution in China. BP oil well explodes. Japanese nuclear reactor explodes. Lady Gaga's butt explodes. Justin Beiber wins a musical award. Gas is back up to four dollars a gallon.

Whereas people living in Third World countries have no Internets and don't find out any of the millions of things that are going wrong. We're getting fifty times more bad news today than people ever were. Of course we're going to be depressed!!!

Except for the most part, people are fairly aloof to these sorts of incidents unless they are directly involved. If you ask the average depressed person in the West why they feel that way it's usually because they are unemployed, don't have a significant other etc, not because people in Africa are starving to death. Maybe bad news does create an overall aura of depression, but other people's misfortunes don't seem to be a factor in most people's minds. Funny enough, based on my own experiences, the people who do seem to care about these things (people who do charity work or are politically active) seem happier on average.