Before we start, no, I don't mean "bring politics into" mental health. Politics obviously covers mental health issues, practices, and institutions. However, I've come to realize a certain approach to mental health has taken root in discussions around mental health. This approach is based on the criticism of mental health from an ideological point. It centers on the idea that mental health is treated only as a chemical imbalance in the brain, and that sociopolitical conditions aren't considered. One of the most prominently figures cited for this is Mark Fisher.

“The current ruling ontology denies any possibility of a social causation of mental illness. The chemico-biologization of mental illness is of course strictly commensurate with its depoliticization. Considering mental illness an individual chemico-biological problem has enormous benefits for capitalism. First, it reinforces Capital’s drive towards atomistic individualization (you are sick because of your brain chemistry). Second, it provides an enormously lucrative market in which multinational pharmaceutical companies can peddle their pharmaceuticals (we can cure you with our SSRIs). It goes without saying that all mental illnesses are neurologically instantiated, but this says nothing about their causation. If it is true, for instance, that depression is constituted by low serotonin levels, what still needs to be explained is why particular individuals have low levels of serotonin. This requires a social and political explanation; and the task of repoliticizing mental illness is an urgent one if the left wants to challenge capitalist realism.”

― Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?, 2009

This, I think, is true to a degree. Denying the mental or physical results of certain policies benefits the rich. However, this criticism, whether intended by Fisher or not, is often used to reduce psychiatry and psychotherapy to mere, atomized, asocial, apolitical practices.

First of all, this hasn't been true in my case. Sure, I have my criticisms of the procedure and the practitioners, but I've talked about a variety of sociopolitical issues in therapy. I mean, how can you not talk about these issues? There are obviously social patterns in a population, and if they're not bad practitioners, the psychiatrists pick up on them. This doesn't mean that I talked about political theory in my therapy, but among numerous topics, I talked about things like the male gender role, the attached aggression and violence, the effects of emotional repression as a result of traditional roles. I know people who extensively talked in therapy about gender roles, queerphobia, and the associated problems.

Therapy helped me on political issues too. I used to be much more repressed, unable to express my disapproval, unable to handle any conflict. But with the help of psychiatry, I started expressing my opinions, including my disapproval, more and more. This included standing up for myself, and while there are many power structures I can't overcome as an individual, this change helped me better stand up for myself against people who have power over me. It also helps me feel not as much like a piece of shit when I can't, because learning to face my emotions helps me realize I have limits.

But, according to the Fisherian argument I've seen repeated countless times, this isn't what psychiatry does. It just treats you like an asocial animal, which is not true at all. If anything, psychiatry emphasizes, again and again, that humans are social animals, therefore, have social needs, and that not meeting those needs will lead to mental problems. Seriously. Search "humans are social creatures psychiatry" on whatever search engine you use and also on Google Scholar. You'll find, page after page, pop article and scientific article, talking about the importance of this.

The second thing I want to mention is that links between inequality and mental health are an important area of research. You can search for keywords like "socioeconomic status mental health" and "inequality mental health" on Google Scholar to see many articles written about this. You can alternatively replace "socioeconomic status" with "SES" and "mental health" with "mental illness" or a mental disorder of your choosing.

To add further support to my argument, let's look at the textbook "Psychology, Global Edition, 5th Edition" of Pearson, which is a very widely known publisher. It has an entire chapter dedicated to social psychology (Chapter 12). The chapter about psychological disorders, Chapter 14, has the following listed as one of its learning objectives (emphasis mine): "Compare and contrast behavioral, social cognitive, and biological explanations for depression and other disorders of mood."

Let's also look at WHO's mental disorders page (emphasis mine).

"At any one time, a diverse set of individual, family, community, and structural factors may combine to protect or undermine mental health. Although most people are resilient, people who are exposed to adverse circumstances – including poverty, violence, disability, and inequality – are at higher risk. Protective and risk factors include individual psychological and biological factors, such as emotional skills as well as genetics. Many of the risk and protective factors are influenced through changes in brain structure and/or function."

I think one of the other negative things about this argument is that, it denies the possibility that some people face mental illness not mainly as a result of social issues, but as a result of some biological unluck. I haven't checked it out specifically, but I think mental illnesses aren't necessarily mainly a result of social conditions or trauma. I can't claim this with certainty, but neither can the opposing side. However, my approach leaves a possibility open for people who may be experiencing exactly this. Therefore, without knowing, it doesn't claim that certain experiences can't exist.

Before I finish, I want to say that I don't deny the existence of bad practice. I've heard many stories of bad psychiatrists, and even if I hadn't, it would be unrealistic to think they wouldn't have such a problem, considering the problems in education and funding. However, my point is, it's not realistic to say psychiatry overlooks the social reasons for mental illnesses. There may be problems, but in no way they are a shared, distinctive feature of the field.

And last of all, this may be harsh but I think it needs saying, Mark Fisher fell victim to suicide. He's not exactly an epitome of healthy coping mechanisms, and his criticisms about mental health should be evaluated with that in mind. I often think intellectualization tends to come in the way of mental health for, well, intellectual people.

Edit: The last paragraph was poorly explained. I further elaborated here.

An odd question to ask, I'll admit, but I think it's worth asking.

It's hard to have a public conversation today about political or politicised topics because people will pipe up and tell you that you're crazy and your ideas are completely backwards. And the reason why people say this is often driven by conflicts between personally held values rather than the ideas themselves. As a result, these conversations usually end up with both sides arguing past eachother and no concensus is ever made; nobody is happy.

One of the more common reasons for these arguements is typically because one party believes in egalitarianism - the belief that all people should be treated the same - and the other one does not. It's particularly strange to see given that so many countries have egalitarianism as a cornerstone to their government and laws. Yet we still see many people trying to take away rights and freedoms from certain classes of people.

Regardless of any particular conversation, what do you think is the best way to convince someone in the value of egalitarianism? How do you convince someone that they're not part of a higher class who has power over another?

Where are your beliefs and principles born from? What does it take for them to change? Do you have a conscious way that you manage and shape your own belief, or does it just happen? How much control over it do you think you have? Do you think that's different from the control others have?

don't know exactly what to title this so that'll do. this is maybe a topic that could fit in ~talk but since it's something i came up with i'll put it here for now. move if necessary. i also don't know if it will "work" in the sense that it'll generate a discussion, but we'll see. never know until you try.

anyways, i am a writer at heart and to put a long story short one of the more interesting concepts i have going on is the social/political ideology of "homaitism", an ideology which at is core opposes property entirely and seeks to establish shared ownership of everything in a society. in a more Wikipedian serse, i think this best describes the ideas at play here:

[Homaitism is] the general term applied to a collection of far-left political philosophies and ideologies which, broadly speaking, reject the ideas of property ownership and sometimes small government. Many Homaitist schools of thought advocate the establishment of a large social net, the socialization of the most important services in a society (such as those of fire, police, healthcare, and so on), and the formation of a government which serves most if not all of the needs of its people. Others resolve that this is incompatible with a Homaitist society and suggest a more communal organization to society, in which groups are formed voluntarily on the basis of need rather than through the establishment of a state authority.

i think it goes without saying that there are some significant flaws in this idea, which is primarily what i want to explore. my main questions here that i'd be interested to hear people's responses to about this, if there's anything to be said (which maybe there's not? dunno):

1. what impression you get from that as an idea. far too utopian? far too many holes to be viable? impractical but not impossible? possible on a certain level? things like that.

2. are there reservations or flaws you see beyond the obvious questions of whether this is utopian or in any way viable?

other comments about the general idea here are also welcome (especially if you think some of these ideas are dumb and contradictory and/or would not work together at all). if people don't think this is enough to go off of i'll try to post some of the more detailed writings/sketches i have which elaborate on it more.