Thank you!

Thanks for commenting. I appreciate you taking the time to offer some criticism. Sorry if this response also appears to be all over the place.

Sorry, but this post is just too “all over the place” for me to coherently follow. The end result is that it just seems an attempt to find *something* wrong in what should be viewed more positively.

I’ve been interested in this issue for almost as long as I can remember. So it’s not something I’ve just discovered. I used to argue mental illness was the result of problems resulting from chemical imbalances in the body. I sincerely believed that. However, I now see the very paradigm of mental illness as one that is flawed and has several negative consequences. It is especially problematic when governments take it upon themselves to cure such problems.

I’m particularly interested in Japan in regards to this issue, because I’m wondering how the movement to classify undesirable social behavior as an illness will fare in Japan.

I agree that what I wrote might have lacked clarity. I was just sort of adding my own personal footnotes to the article. I probably need to write an essay about my views on this matter so that they can be put forward for criticism. I’m a fairly strong adherent of Thomas Szasz’s views on this. I’ve contributed a lot to the Thomas Szasz discussion group.

Having said that, not ever so long ago I believed something very differently. So it’s not impossible I might change my mind again. It just depends on the weight of the arguments.

If we were talking about work-related accidents and deaths resulting from that, would you be so quick to criticize the government for trying to get those workers (or their families) compensation?

That’s a really interesting question. We can imagine someone whose desperate for work and a company taking advantage of that person by giving them low pay to do dangerous work. There are, in fact, several labor laws to protect victimization of such people. I don’t have any particular criticism of these laws. I probably do have a bit of libertarian bias so if I were to study these laws I might find something I didn’t like about them. I honestly don’t know.

But this is very different from the issue of mental illness and suicide. Could you be more specific in your comparison?

We are no doubt approaching this issue with different problems in mind. I’m concerned about governance and self-autonomy.

You could argue that the government should also be looking at why those accidents occurred in the first place, but just because there is one article about the government trying to get adequate compensation for victims’ families doesn’t automatically mean that the government is not trying to also address the fundamental issue of safety.

I certainly could do this, as might you. If you get to it before me please let me know what you find.

Clearly there is a problem of suicides, and of suicides from “overwork.” Obviously there is a fundamental problem of how work is still viewed in Japan and how many companies take advantage of that with “coerced” overtime (often not financially compensated, which is illegal).

Hm. How would you say work is viewed in Japan? Moreover, how would you say work should be viewed? Phew! Sounds like mine field to me.

Certainly there is a ton of work the government needs to do in this area.

What specifically do you suggest the government do? I am not convinced the government needs to do anything at this point.

I don’t understand why it is the government’s responsibility to do anything. I don’t have time right now, but I might be willing to try and build an argument that government actions could be contributing to the problem. I’m not sure if I could do this successfully or not, but it might be something worth exploring.

But in the meantime, is it “pseudo-science collectivism” (huh?) to want to help those suffering from depression (work-related or otherwise).

By collectivism, I mean something along the lines of centralization and planning. When health is handled by the government, especially the national government, that which is deemed an illness is in an ultimate sense determined by a central planning authority. This is especially troubling in the area of mental illness, where what we are really dealing with is behavior we don’t approve of.

I think the term pseudo-science is fairly clear. I don’t regard depression as an illness. Mental illnesses are defined, at least in America, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is currently on its fourth addition. It’s commonly referred to as the DMV-IV.

You can find what they have to say about depression here. I don’t find this adequate to say the least. Do you?

Actually there are many comparisons between nihonjinron theories and definitions offered by the DSM-IV. Both seek to explain human behavior and resort to theories that cannot be empirically tested.

Both undermine the concept of human autonomy and self-responsibility.

You may want to argue that some mental illnesses, such as depression have in fact been empirically demonstrated. If so please let me know what study you are referring to. In general, I think the premises that go into such studies are seriously flawed. The media plays up these studies complete with cute pictures of the brain. I just don’t buy into any of this any more.

As was pointed out in the article, there is a stigma attached to mental illness in this country and that is something many health professionals would like to change.

I have mixed feelings about this. I think the impetus to deny an illness as a result of feeling shame of some sort is clearly in error. Only in this case, I don’t think there really is an illness to speak of. Only an important human (moral) problem that needs to be dealt with.

I think by trying to group together what might be several different and separate ethical issues under the rubric of illness will create more problems than it solves.

However, given your first link about the “myth” of mental illness, it would seem I’m whistling in the wind to say that clearly, many people like myself do view depression and suicidal tendencies as an illness and that these people are “sick” in some way.

I think the tendency to classify certain behaviors we don’t approve of as illnesses and then seeking to cure them is basically a bad one. I generally go out of my way to seek criticism of my views, which is at least one motivation for this blog. I’ll try to expand on my thoughts in regards to this at some point so you can more readily criticize them, if you’d like to.

If you want to determine in advance I am a person who under no circumstance will change his mind, then that would be similar to your belief that people have mental illnesses and therefore can’t help their own behavior. I suppose.

I will note that I am open to the idea that something like psycho-therapy helps people. In fact, I believe some of the values of psycho-therapy are quite good. However, as I view belief in psycho-analysis as a kind of religious view, I think it should be kept out of the government to the same extent all such religious views are.

I liked this post and I do very much sympathize with your position that “[s]aying that undesirable behavior is sick is to put experts in charge of our behavior.” (I have problems with your left/right reference, but that’s a whole other topic.)

Kurt, you write that “many people like myself do view depression and suicidal tendencies as an illness and that these people are “sick” in some way.”

I agree with Matt that the word “sick” is unhelpful and extremely damaging: the implicit message is that so-called “mental illnesses” have some sort of biological/physical roots, in the same way as “normal” illnesses do. This is, firstly, extremely naive. The “science” of mental illness, corporate claims aside, does not have the necessary evidence to say anything even remotely close to this.

More importantly, however, locating the “illness” in the individual is extremely convenient. It shifts the blame for the problems of the larger society onto the few who “exhibit symptoms”. That these “symptoms” are the problems of the individual, who must be “treated”, sidesteps issues (such as the issue of work conditions) tied directly to political decisions made by much more powerful players, as well as issues of our collective responsibility in these matters.

I also don’t think the accident comparison is relevant. In the case of issues such as depression you are dealing with a condition that has an extreme social stigma attached to it. Placing the focus on “treatment” over locating the roots of the problem in political decisions is just a kind of bait-and-switch.

If we were talking about work-related accidents and deaths resulting from that, would you be so quick to criticize the government for trying to get those workers (or their families) compensation? You could argue that the government should also be looking at why those accidents occurred in the first place, but just because there is one article about the government trying to get adequate compensation for victims’ families doesn’t automatically mean that the government is not trying to also address the fundamental issue of safety.

Clearly there is a problem of suicides, and of suicides from “overwork.” Obviously there is a fundamental problem of how work is still viewed in Japan and how many companies take advantage of that with “coerced” overtime (often not financially compensated, which is illegal). Certainly there is a ton of work the government needs to do in this area.

But in the meantime, is it “pseudo-science collectivism” (huh?) to want to help those suffering from depression (work-related or otherwise). As was pointed out in the article, there is a stigma attached to mental illness in this country and that is something many health professionals would like to change. However, given your first link about the “myth” of mental illness, it would seem I’m whistling in the wind to say that clearly, many people like myself do view depression and suicidal tendencies as an illness and that these people are “sick” in some way.